Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32221191›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2020

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Exploring Plastic Surgeon Practice Patterns and Perspectives.

Adeyiza O Momoh, Kent A Griffith, Sarah T Hawley, Monica Morrow, Kevin C Ward, Ann S Hamilton, Dean Shumway, Steven J Katz, Reshma Jagsi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Analysis of Career Outcomes and Practice Patterns After Microsurgery Fellowship.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The International Awareness of Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Impact of Prior Breast Augmentation on Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Adeyiza O MomohFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Kent A GriffithFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Sarah T HawleyFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Monica MorrowFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Kevin C WardFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Ann S HamiltonFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Dean ShumwayFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Steven J KatzFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Reshma JagsiFrom the Section of Plastic Surgery, the School of Public Health, Center for Cancer Biostatistics, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, the Department of Internal Medicine, and the Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development; the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health; and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California.
Emory University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USMichigan Medicine · USUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI THEODORE S LAWRENCE · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
CALIFORNIA COORDINATED CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003862 · DP · CALIFORNIA STATE DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI SNIPES, KURT P · 2012 to 2014
$31.5M
GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003875 · DP · GEORGIA DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI O'CONNOR, JEAN CATHERINE · 2012 to 2014
$15.9M
The Challenge of Individualizing Treatments for Patients with Breast CancerP01CA163233 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HOFER, TIMOTHY P. · 2012 to 2016
$13.4M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003862NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003875NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000034CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000140CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201300015CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA163233NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithin the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer, variations exist in the reconstructive options offered and care provided. The authors evaluated plastic surgeon perspectives on important issues related to breast cancer management and reconstruction and provide some insight into factors that influence these perspectives.

methodsWomen diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. These women were surveyed and identified their treating plastic surgeons. Surveys were sent to the identified plastic surgeons to collect data on specific reconstruction practices.

resultsResponses from 134 plastic surgeons (74.4 percent response rate) were received. Immediate reconstruction (79.7 percent) was the most common approach to timing, and expander/implant reconstruction (72.6 percent) was the most common technique reported. Nearly one-third of respondents (32.1 percent) reported that reimbursement influenced the proportion of autologous reconstructions performed. Most (82.8 percent) reported that discussions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were initiated by patients. Most surgeons (81.3 to 84.3 percent) felt that good symmetry is achieved with unilateral autologous reconstruction with contralateral symmetry procedures in patients with small or large breasts; a less pronounced majority (62.7 percent) favored unilateral implant reconstructions in patients with large breasts. In patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy, one-fourth of the surgeons (27.6 percent) reported that they seldom recommend delayed reconstruction, and 64.9 percent reported recommending immediate expander/implant reconstruction.

conclusionsReconstructive practices in a modern cohort of plastic surgeons suggest that immediate and implant reconstructions are performed preferentially. Respondents perceived a number of factors, including surgeon training, time spent in the operating room, and insurance reimbursement, to negatively influence the performance of autologous reconstruction.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGeorgiaHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementLos AngelesMammaplastyMastectomyMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prophylactic MastectomySEER ProgramSurgeons

Identifiers

PMID32221191
PMCPMC8099170
OpenAlexW2999638128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.