ReviewPlastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.)2018
Laparoscopic Harvesting of Omental Flaps for Breast Reconstruction-A Review of the Literature and Outcome Analysis.
Review in Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of omental flap in total vaginectomy for post-radiotherapy recurrent cervical cancer: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopically harvested omental flap for immediate breast reconstruction: a retrospective single-center study of 300 cases.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic harvest and free transplantation of great omentum flap for extensive tissue defects in complex wounds.JPRAS open · 2024Article
- Crafting Contours: A Comprehensive Guide to Scrotal Reconstruction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Current Research on the Use of the Omental Flap in Breast Reconstruction and Post-Mastectomy Lymphedema: A Focus on Omental-Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence on the use of omental flaps for breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer is lacking, and no published reviews report an outcome-based assessment of such flap. This review explores available data and evidence for change in complication rates following the shift toward laparoscopic harvesting.
methodsWe searched the databases Excerpta Medica database, MEDLINE, and PubMed from inception until December 2015 using search terms "omental flaps" and "breast reconstruction." Data extracted were patient characteristics, technique used, and outcome measures reported and were then analyzed based on the technique of harvesting.
resultsTwenty-two articles reporting 651 patients who underwent mastectomies and breast-conserving surgeries were included in this review. Most flaps, 537 (82.5%), were harvested by laparoscopy, and 626 (96.2%) of the flaps were pedicle flaps. The mean age was 47.7 years (standard deviation: 4.29), and mean follow-up was 38.1 months. There were 88 reported complications among 562 patients in 16 reports. The rate of any complication was calculated to be 15.0%, with a higher rate (29.1%) occurring with the open technique in comparison to laparoscopy (12.6%). The commonest complications were postoperative infection and breast firmness each reported in 2.22%. Most authors reported advantages of malleability and excellent aesthetic outcomes and disadvantages in terms of inability to estimate the volume of the flap and variability in size.
conclusionOmentum use is safe and has advantages in breast reconstruction where other options are limited including a natural feeling and minimal donor site morbidity if harvested laparoscopically.
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.