Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31709172›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2019

A review of visualized preoperative imaging with a focus on surgical procedures of the breast.

Bridget Rodkin, David J Hunter-Smith, Warren M Rozen

Abstract readReview
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Bridget RodkinDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.
David J Hunter-SmithDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.
Warren M RozenDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preoperative imaging has become a valuable tool in the planning of perforator flaps, and to date, computed tomographic angiography (CTA) has been shown to be the gold standard in this role. The evidence for this is a source of constant investigation, with advances in newer modalities coming to the fore. A literature review was undertaken to evaluate the current role of relevant imaging modalities in 'visualized surgery'-the ability to map anatomy prior to surgical incision. A focus is made on their accuracy in perforator mapping and correlation with improved clinical outcomes in the context of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap surgery. Other applications for preoperative imaging in breast surgery such as imaging of alternate donor sites or of the recipient site and imaging for volumetric assessment are also discussed. Preoperative imaging is integral to the planning of reconstructive breast surgery. This review has discussed the range of imaging techniques used to map and visualize perforator vasculature, and whilst there are varied clinical applications for the imaging modalities, CTA has been demonstrated to be the most precise and to confer the best clinical outcomes. Applications of the other imaging techniques are varied and these should remain as valid alternatives, particularly for patients where radiation or contrast exposure should be limited. Further studies could focus on the development of a more definitive protocol regarding the approach to preoperative imaging in breast surgery.

Indexed as

computed tomographic angiography (CTA)Computed tomographydeep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap (DIEP flap)perforator

Identifiers

PMID31709172
PMCPMC6819891

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.