Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30842924›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2019

Optimizing perioperative strategies to maximize success with prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Dhivya R Srinivasa, Michael Holland, Hani Sbitany

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. BraxonFrontiers in surgery · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

3 authors.

Dhivya R SrinivasaDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Michael HollandDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Hani SbitanyDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implant based reconstruction is still the most commonly employed method of post mastectomy reconstruction in the United States and internationally. Mastectomy techniques are improving, and adjuncts such as tissue perfusion technology and biologic implants allow for re-evaluation of traditional reconstructive methods. Subpectoral implant placement is used in a large majority of patients undergoing implant based reconstruction. However, with the advent of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), a "sling" for the expander and implant can be placed with surgical precision to create the optimal breast pocket. This has allowed for placement of the breast prosthesis in a prepectoral anatomic plane. The benefits are clear: avoidance of animation deformities and a significant decrease in pain that results from pectoralis mobilization and spasm. Here, we discuss specific techniques to avoid pitfalls and optimize aesthetic results with prepectoral breast reconstruction. Patient selection, intra-operative mastectomy flap evaluation, modifications in expander and implant fill, and technique specifics all play a critical role in this new, and rapidly growing method for implant based breast reconstruction.

Indexed as

patient managementPerioperative strategiesprepectoral reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID30842924
PMCPMC6378254

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.