ReviewGland surgery2015
Anatomic and physiological fundamentals for autologous breast reconstruction.
Review in Gland surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-based planning for DIEAP flap procedures: exploring foundation models for artery perforators analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Revolutionizing Breast Reconstruction: The Rise of Hybrid Techniques.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Smartphone Thermal Imaging for Preoperative Perforator Mapping in Perforator Based Flaps.Cureus · 2024Article
- Localization of perforators in autologous breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP)-flap-the indocyanine green angiography perspective.Gland surgery · 2023Article
- Improving the Safety of DIEP Flap Transplantation: Detailed Perforator Anatomy Study Using Preoperative CTA.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of autologous tissue transfer is reliant on adequate blood supply and as we endeavour to tailor our reconstructive options through our flap choices and design. Autologous breast reconstruction has made substantial progress over the years and the evolution of refinements over the last 30 years has allowed flaps to be based on specific perforators. The ultimate goal of breast reconstruction following mastectomy is to match optimal tissue replacement with minimal donor-site expenditure. In parallel surgeons will seek ways to ensure safe flap design and harvest while maintaining predictability and reliable tissue perfusion. Better understanding of the vascular anatomy and physiology of the cutaneous circulation of soft tissues, and that of patterns of blood flow from individual perforator has provided insight to advance perforator flap harvest and modifications in flap design. The aim of this article is to review the principles of blood supply and flap design exemplified through common flaps used in autologous breast reconstructive surgery, to better understand approaches for safe flap harvest and transfer of well perfused tissue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.