Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32863867›Full record

ArticleEcancermedicalscience2020

Chest wall perforator flaps in partial breast reconstruction after breast conservation surgery: an additional oncoplastic surgical option.

Sanjit Kumar Agrawal, Sudip Ratna Shakya, Shashank Nigam, Abhishek Sharma, Soumitra S Datta, Rosina Ahmed

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sanjit Kumar AgrawalDepartment of Breast Oncosurgery, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata 700156, India.
Sudip Ratna ShakyaDepartment of Breast Oncosurgery, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata 700156, India.
Shashank NigamDepartment of Breast Oncosurgery, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata 700156, India.
Abhishek SharmaDepartment of Breast Oncosurgery, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata 700156, India.
Soumitra S DattaDepartment of Palliative Care and Psycho-Oncology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata 700156, India.
Rosina AhmedDepartment of Breast Oncosurgery, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata 700156, India.
Tata Medical Center · INMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Partial breast reconstruction using chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) is a recent option used by breast surgeons, mainly for lateral quadrant defects with a relatively large volume of excision. We report a single-centre experience of CWPF with surgery details, complications, re-excision, aesthetic and oncological outcomes. This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients who had undergone breast conservation surgery (BCS) plus CWPF reconstruction. All variables were recorded prospectively in the institutional database. A survey was done to analyse patient satisfaction at about 6 months after completion of radiotherapy. Forty patients had CWPF based reconstruction in 3 years. 57.5 % of patients had lateral intercostal artery perforator (LICAP) flap, 5% had lateral thoracic artery perforator (LTAP) flap, 27.5% had combined LICAP plus LTAP and 10% patients had anterior intercostal artery perforator (AICAP) flap. Tumour excision cavity defect was of the lateral quadrant in 82.5%, central quadrant in 10% and medial quadrant in 7.5% of patients. The margin was positive for five patients, out of which four required cavity shave and one had a mastectomy. One patient had complete flap loss, and two patients developed surgical site infection. 96% of patients were satisfied with the scar, and 88% were happy with the treated breast in comparison to the opposite breast. 92% were comfortable going out in public and felt that in retrospect their decision not to have a mastectomy was correct. With a median follow up of 18 (10, 22) months, one patient died, and four had recurrences. CWPF may be used for partial breast reconstruction in the small non-ptotic breast with excellent outcome and high patient satisfaction scores.

Indexed as

breast cancerchest wall perforator flaponcoplastic breast surgery

Identifiers

PMID32863867
PMCPMC7434511
OpenAlexW3042549239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.