ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
Use of Single-recipient Vessels for Cross-chest Abdominal Flap-based Breast Augmentation as an Outpatient.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Avoiding Chest Wall Morbidity in Outpatient Microvascular Free-Flap Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Gender-affirming DIEP Flap Breast Augmentation.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Contralateral internal mammary vessels - a rescue recipient vessels option in breast reconstruction.Case reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast reconstruction with autologous tissue following mastectomy for breast cancer has become the standard of care. Microvascular breast augmentation is an alternative for patients with failed breast prostheses, including painful capsular contractures or poor cosmetic outcomes. We present a series of 4 patients who underwent microvascular breast augmentation with cross-chest flap recipient vessels.
methodsWe perform a bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction in an outpatient setting following a modified recovery protocol, focused on decreasing postoperative pain and narcotic requirements, allowing early ambulation and discharge. This includes harvest of the flap via abdominal microfascial incisions and rib-sparing vessel dissection. Cosmetic microvascular augmentation of the contralateral breast was performed via cross-chest flap recipient vessel anastomoses, where the pedicle was tunneled across the chest and anastomosed to the primary flap.
resultsFour patients underwent flap-based breast augmentation with cross-chest recipient vessels. Two patients underwent immediate DIEP flap breast reconstruction of the affected side and contralateral flap-based augmentation, while 2 patients underwent bilateral breast augmentation with DIEP flaps for cosmetic purposes due to undesired cosmetic results following implant-based augmentations. No intraoperative complications were reported, and all patients were discharged within 23 hours without signs of flap compromise or need for operative take-backs. Mean follow-up was 23 weeks.
conclusionsThe DIEP flap is recognized as an option for breast augmentation, although its limitations are several, including the pain and recovery associated with autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction. Enhanced recovery protocols help reduce this burden, making it more acceptable and feasible.
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.