Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31933584›Full record

ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Comparison of Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Immediate Implant Reconstruction after Skin- and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Hospital-Based Cohort Study.

Fabinshy Thangarajah, Timo Treeter, Barbara Krug, Martin Hellmich, Christian Eichler, Bettina Hanstein, Peter Mallmann, Wolfram Malter

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fabinshy ThangarajahDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne.
Timo TreeterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne.
Barbara KrugDepartment of Diagnostical and Interventional Radiology, University of Cologne Medical School, Cologne.
Martin HellmichInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Christian EichlerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne.
Bettina HansteinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne.
Peter MallmannDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne.
Wolfram MalterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Cologne.
University of Cologne · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionImplant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is a common surgical procedure in breast cancer patients. Comparative analysis concerning the placement of implants is still lacking. Hence, we aimed to analyze pre- versus subpectoral IBR in breast cancer patients. PATIENTS: A single-center experience with implant-based IBR following skin/nipple-sparing mastectomy was evaluated. Patient demographics, incidence of major complications, and quality of life assessed with BREAST-Q were compared between the pre- and subpectoral cohort.

resultsA total of 63 patients were included in this analysis of whom 29 underwent subpectoral and 34 underwent prepectoral IBR. Median duration of surgery was prolonged in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (104 ± 28 vs. 80 ± 91 min; p < 0.05). The mean number of major complications was significantly increased in the subpectoral group (1.41 ± 1.76 vs. 0.47 ± 0.75 per patient; p < 0.05). Detailed analysis showed a significantly increased incidence of implant dislocation (p < 0.05) and a trend concerning capsular contracture (p = 0.086, not significant) and necrosis (p = 0.092, not significant) in the subpectoral group. Quality of life was equal in both groups.

conclusionThe mean number of major complications in the subpectoral group should be considered when IBR is indicated. Prepectoral IBR seems to be a feasible alternative surgical treatment option with less major complications in selected patients.

Indexed as

Breast cancerIBRNipple-sparing mastectomyPrepectoralSkin-sparing mastectomySubpectoral

Identifiers

PMID31933584
PMCPMC6940459
OpenAlexW2918717398

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.