Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31624668›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019

Vertical Augmentation Mastopexy with Implant Isolation and Tension Management.

Thomas J Hubbard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic Review of Patient Satisfaction Following Mastopexy Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas J HubbardHubbard Plastic Surgery, Virginia Beach, Va.
Creative Commons · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasingly popular vertical method of mastopexy is less commonly the technique of choice in augmentation mastopexy possibly due to concerns raised in the literature. The purpose of this report is to evaluate safety and satisfaction of the author's variation of the vertical method in this combination surgery. It includes unique tension management steps and total implant isolation from cut parenchyma.

methodsA retrospective analysis was done of 105 consecutive patients treated with the author's method over an 8 year 6 month period. Clinical outcomes were examined, and a Breast-Q survey and Spear's 2004 survey were mailed to all patients who agreed to it by phone.

resultsThere were no hematomas or delayed healing but one pulmonary embolus treated as an outpatient and one infection appearing 6 weeks postoperatively. There were only 3 grade 3 or 4 capsular contractures. Sixty-seven patients consented to the survey and 36 were returned. With Breast-Q, there was a mean score of 82.78 for outcome satisfaction and 75.94 for satisfaction with breasts. Spear's survey confirmed high satisfaction with 90.9% indicating that they were satisfied or extremely satisfied. Comparison with Spear's own surgical results did not reach statistical significance.

conclusionsThe author's specific adaptation of vertical augmentation mastopexy appears to be very safe and successfully addresses a variety of healing, tension, and exposure concerns mentioned in the literature. Implant isolation may decrease capsular contracture rate. Both Breast-Q survey and Spear's more specific survey indicate high patient satisfaction.

Identifiers

PMID31624668
PMCPMC6635219
OpenAlexW2951460202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.