Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30629099›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2019

The Tissue-Based Triad in Augmentation Mastopexy: Single-Stage Technical Refinements.

Kyle Sanniec, William P Adams

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kyle SanniecDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX.
William P AdamsDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of patients seeking augmentation mastopexy has increased over the last several decades. The conflicting goals of augmentation (tissue expansion) and mastopexy (tissue reduction) have led to higher revision rates, decreased patient satisfaction, and pending litigation. Some have even argued for staging of all augmentation mastopexy procedures.

objectivesThe goal of this study was to review the senior author's (W.P.A.) process-oriented approach to single-stage augmentation mastopexy and to detail the technical framework to produce reliable, reproducible, safe results in a 1-stage augmentation mastopexy.

methodsA prospectively collected patient database from January 2007 until January 2018 was reviewed. All single-stage augmentation mastopexy patients were evaluated, including patient demographics, operative details, complications, and outcomes.

resultsA total of 251 patients were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 16.9 months, average patient age was 38.0 years, and average implant size was 285.8 cc. A total of 9 (3.6%) patients required reoperation and only 2 (0.8%) required explantation. Fourteen (5.6%) patients developed delayed wound healing that responded to local wound care alone.

conclusionsUtilization of a safe and reliable processed approach to single-stage augmentation mastopexy is highly predictable with low reoperation rates. The technical refinements presented have led to increased consistency in delivering high-quality results to patients in a procedure fraught with challenges. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:

Indexed as

Breast ImplantsPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedBreast ImplantationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammaplastyMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReoperationReproducibility of ResultsWound HealingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30629099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.