ArticleBJS open2020
Experiences of implant loss after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: qualitative study.
Article in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Implant Based Breast Reconstruction Using a Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh (TiLOOP® Bra): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Machine Learning to Predict Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Failure: A Bootstrap-Validated Elastic Net Model.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- The Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives of "Failure" in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Literature.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2026Review
- A Brand-New Drainage Fluid Predictor, ICAM-1 for Implant Loss After the Immediate Reconstruction of Breast.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Article
- Impact of lymph node status on the prognosis of female breast cancer patients who underwent immediate reconstruction after total mastectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Salvage of the Mastectomy Pocket in Infected Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation and Dwell: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Reconstructing Failure: Assessing Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Loss of Initial Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Assessment of Appearance-related Questions About Breast Reconstruction Generated by Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcomes 3 and 18 months after mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Does the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in women undergoing pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction increase operative success versus non-use of ADM in the same setting? A systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Salvaging the Unsalvageable: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for Severe Infection of Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure in the UK, but almost one in ten women experience implant loss and reconstructive failure after this technique. Little is known about how implant loss impacts on patients' quality of life. The first phase of the Loss of implant Breast Reconstruction (LiBRA) study aimed to use qualitative methods to explore women's experiences of implant loss and develop recommendations to improve care.
methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of women who experienced implant loss after immediate IBBR, performed for malignancy or risk reduction across six centres. Interviews explored decision-making regarding IBBR, and experiences of implant loss and support received. Thematic analysis was used to explore the qualitative interview data. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved.
resultsTwenty-four women were interviewed; 19 had surgery for malignancy and five for risk reduction. The median time between implant loss and interview was 42 (range 22-74) months. Ten women had undergone secondary reconstruction, two were awaiting surgery, and 12 had declined further reconstruction. Three key themes were identified: the need for accurate information about the risks and benefits of IBBR; the need for more information about 'early-warning' signs of postoperative problems, to empower women to seek help; and better support following implant loss.
conclusionImplant loss is a devastating event for many women. Better preoperative information and support, along with holistic patient-centred care when complications occur, may significantly improve the experience and outcome of care.
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.