Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30746634›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2019

Breast sensibility after mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction.

E Bijkerk, S M J van Kuijk, J Beugels, A J M Cornelissen, E M Heuts, R R W J van der Hulst, S M H Tuinder

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Careful Where You Cut: Strategies for Successful Nerve-preserving Mastectomy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

E BijkerkDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. ennie.bijkerk@mumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1773-7888
S M J van KuijkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
J BeugelsDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
A J M CornelissenDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
E M HeutsDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
R R W J van der HulstDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
S M H TuinderDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the study is to evaluate the level of sensible impairment after mastectomy or implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). In addition, factors influencing breast sensibility were evaluated.

methodsA cross-sectional study was performed in Maastricht University Medical Center between July 2016 and August 2018. Women with unilateral mastectomy with or without IBBR were included. Objective sensory measurements were performed using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. Their healthy breast served as control, using a paired t test. Differences between mastectomy with and without IBBR were evaluated using the independent t test. Linear regression was performed to evaluate the association between patient characteristics on breast sensibility. The paired t test was used to evaluate in which part of the breast the sensibility is best preserved.

resultsFifty-one patients were eligible for inclusion. Sixteen patients underwent IBBR after mastectomy. Twenty-three patients received radiotherapy and 35 patients received chemotherapy. Monofilament values were significantly higher in the operated group compared to the reference group (p < 0.001). Linear regression showed a statistically significant association between IBBR and objectively measured impaired sensation (p = 0.008). After mastectomy, the cutaneous protective sensation is only diminished. After IBBR, it is lost in the majority of the breast. The medial part of the breast was significantly more sensitive than the lateral part in all operated breasts (p < 0.001).

conclusionIBBR has a significantly negative impact on the breast sensibility compared to mastectomy alone. This study shows that the protective sensation of the skin in the breast is lost after IBBR. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the level of sensible impairment after mastectomy or IBBR. More research is necessary to confirm these results.

Indexed as

MammaplastyAdultAgedBreastBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMastectomyMiddle AgedSensationSkinAlloplastic breast reconstructionBreast cancerImplant-based breast reconstructionMastectomySensibility

Identifiers

PMID30746634
PMCPMC6533215
OpenAlexW2913449346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.