ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Influence of Incision Site on Postoperative Outcome in Skin-/Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Is There a Difference between Radial and Inframammary Incision?
Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction: Does Incision Matter?Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in results between the radial and the inframammary approach in nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction.
methodsThe patients were divided into two groups (group 1: radial incision; group 2: inframammary fold incision [IMF]), each consisting of two subgroups for direct-to-implant reconstruction (1a, 2a) and expander reconstruction (1b, 2b). The patients were operated on between March 2012 and May 2017. Preoperative tumor parameters, reconstruction parameters, postoperative tumor parameters, and immediate and late complications were assessed. Postoperative photographs were evaluated by the patients and 8 plastic surgeons by means of grading (1-5) and the visual analog scale (VAS; 1-10).
resultsEnrolled in this study were 28 patients, namely, 7 patients in each subgroup. The median age was 46 years, and the median follow-up period was 40 months. No immediate complications occurred. Three patients had late complications, but there was no case of evident capsular fibrosis. Twenty-seven patients (96.42%) evaluated the postoperative result as excellent/good. The postoperative evaluation by the plastic surgeons was excellent/good for a median of 18 patients (64.28%). Group 1 showed a median VAS score of 7.63 (expander group: 7.50; direct-to-implant group: 7.75); the median VAS score for group 2 was 8.25 (expander group: 8.75; direct-to-implant group: 7.50).
conclusionsOur study shows good results for implant breast reconstruction in both groups, with minimally better results for the IMF group. In the direct-to-implant subgroups, the radial group showed slightly better results.
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.