Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24469158›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2014

Muscle-sparing TRAM flap does not protect breast reconstruction from postmastectomy radiation damage compared with the DIEP flap.

Patrick B Garvey, Mark W Clemens, Austin E Hoy, Benjamin Smith, Hong Zhang, Steven J Kronowitz, Charles E Butler

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessment of Free Flap Breast Reconstructions.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Breast Reconstruction and Radiation Therapy.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patrick B GarveyHouston, Texas From the Departments of Plastic Surgery and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
Mark W Clemens
Austin E Hoy
Benjamin Smith
Hong Zhang
Steven J Kronowitz
Charles E Butler
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIrradiation to free flaps following immediate breast reconstruction has been shown to compromise outcomes. The authors hypothesized that irradiated muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps experience less fat necrosis than irradiated deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps.

methodsThe authors performed a retrospective study of all consecutive patients undergoing immediate, autologous, abdomen-based free flap breast reconstruction with muscle-sparing free TRAM or DIEP flaps over a 10-year period at their institution. Irradiated flaps (external-beam radiation therapy) after immediate breast reconstruction were compared with nonirradiated flaps. Logistic regression analysis identified potential associations between patient, tumor, and reconstructive characteristics and surgical outcomes.

resultsThe analysis included 625 flaps: 40 (6.4 percent) irradiated versus 585 (93.6 percent) nonirradiated. Mean follow-up for the irradiated and nonirradiated flaps was 60.0 and 48.5 months, respectively (p = 0.02). Overall complication rates were similar for both the irradiated and nonirradiated flaps. Irradiated flaps (i.e., both DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps) developed fat necrosis at a significantly higher rate (22.5 percent) than the nonirradiated flaps (9.2 percent; p = 0.009). There were no differences in fat necrosis rates between the DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in both the irradiated and nonirradiated groups.

conclusionsBoth DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flap reconstructions had much higher rates of fat necrosis when irradiated. Contrary to our hypothesis, the authors found that immediate breast reconstruction with a muscle-sparing free TRAM flap does not result in a lower rate of fat necrosis than reconstruction with a DIEP flap. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Indexed as

MammaplastySurgical FlapsFat NecrosisFemaleHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPerforator FlapPostoperative ComplicationsRadiation InjuriesRectus AbdominisRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID24469158
PMCPMC3940338
OpenAlexW2030729040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.