ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
Surgical Outcomes of Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Young Women.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral and partial subpectoral immediate single-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative complications of prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficiency of Tranexamic Acid for Prevention of Bleeding In Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Comparison of different implant-based breast reconstruction strategies: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Revisiting Total Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: Technical Refinements for Improved Outcomes.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Complications After Subpectoral and Prepectoral Tissue Expander Placement in Women Undergoing Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison of Patient-Reported Quality of Life Following Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral and Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Using BREAST-Q: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Archives of plastic surgery · 2024Article
- The Impact of Breast Implant Cohesivity on Rippling and Revision Procedures in 2-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
- Prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: U.S. medical center experience and narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Management of complications following implant-based breast reconstruction: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Breast reconstruction after mastectomy in patients with obesity: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
- Advances in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2023Review
- Article
- The Language of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Can We Do Better?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Prepectoral breast reconstruction with complete anterior implant coverage using a single, large, square-shaped acellular dermal matrix.BMC surgery · 2022Article
- Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study.The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Early Clinical Outcomes of Polydioxanone Mesh for Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo-staged implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common breast reconstructive modality. Recently, technological and surgical advances have encouraged surgeons to revisit prepectoral IBR. Data comparing prepectoral against subpectoral IBR in women under the age of 40 are lacking.
methodsRetrospective chart review of patients under the age of 40 years old, who underwent immediate 2-staged IBR at our institution, was performed. Patient's demographics, clinical characteristics, operative details, and early surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Data with values of
resultsBetween 2012 and 2016, 100 patients (187 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 69 patients (124 breasts) who underwent subpectoral IBR were included. Median follow-up was 17.9 and 17.5 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Total number of complications including both stages of reconstruction was 20 (10.7%) and 19 (15.3%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (
conclusionsEarly complications and implant explantation rates are comparable among prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in women under 40 years old. Based on these results, we believe that prepectoral IBR is a safe, reliable, and promising reconstructive option.
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.