ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2019
Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.
Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Postoperative Complications Following Prepectoral Versus Partial Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- ADM-Assisted Breast Reconstruction vs Micro-Polyurethane Foam-Covered Implants in the Prepectoral Space: A Monocentric Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Current Global Trends in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Advances in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2023Review
- Immediate Skin Replacement Allows for Nipple-sparing, Direct-to-implant Reconstruction in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancers.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- A Critical Appraisal of Late Complications of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prepectoral breast reconstruction was first done in the early 1960s; however, while initial results were promising, high complication rates led surgeons to move toward submuscular implant placement. We soon came to find that submuscular implant placement was not without its own set of drawbacks. Surgeons have since revisited the efficacy of prepectoral breast reconstruction in light of new surgical and technological advances. Following these advancements, complication profiles for prepectoral breast reconstruction have drastically improved. Despite this change, surgeons recognize that prepectoral implant placement is not for everyone and patient selection is critical to success. As increasing numbers of these procedures continue to be done, we must now look to conduct direct comparisons between submuscular and prepectoral breast implant placement so that surgeons can make evidence-based decisions on patient selection and operative planning.
Indexed as
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.