ReviewJPRAS open2020
Prepectoral implant pocket conversion in breast reconstruction.
Review in JPRAS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Letter in Reply to Comment on: "Pocket Conversion from Prepectoral to Retropectoral Implant Placement in Breast Reconstruction: A Cost-effective Solution for High-Grade Rippling and Implant Visibility".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Pocket Conversion from Prepectoral to Retropectoral Implant Placement in Breast Reconstruction: A Cost-effective Solution for High-Grade Rippling and Implant Visibility.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- How to approach the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap revision for optimal aesthetics.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Dynamic Contour Irregularities in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Long-Term Aesthetic Outcomes After Direct-to-Implant Versus Tissue Expander Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Optimizing Aesthetic Results in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient Factors, Surgical Techniques, and Adjunctive Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Improvement of Shoulder Motion in Two-Stage Dual-Plane Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction followed by Radiation Therapy through Delayed Prepectoral Conversion.Archives of plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Recurrent Breast Animation after Conversion from Dual Plane to Prepectoral Breast Implant Placement.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- From Sub-Pectoral to Pre-Pectoral Implant Reconstruction: A Decisional Algorithm to Optimise Outcomes of Breast Replacement Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Body Self-Perception After Breast Reconstruction in Young Female Patients Affected by Poland Syndrome.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
- BraxonFrontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Outcome Assessment According to the Thickness and Direction of the Acellular Dermal Matrix after Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.BioMed research international · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile many authors have reported their experience in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction (BR), implant pocket conversion from a submuscular to a prepectoral plane is less well described. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive review on plane conversion in implant-based BR, including the indications, surgical techniques, functional, and esthetic results. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature search via PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed using the following MeSH terms: "prepectoral pocket conversion", "subcutaneous pocket conversion", "prepectoral plane conversion", "subcutaneous plane conversion", and "prepectoral breast reconstruction".
resultsTen articles in which 504 breasts were studied were deemed eligible for inclusion. The indications to perform plane conversion were animation deformity (AD), chronic pain, and implant malposition. Seven studies described complete or partial capsulectomy. The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) was reported in all cases except for three studies. The mean follow-up was 10.64 months. There was resolution of AD in 100% of cases. Three studies reported complete resolution of chronic pain. The overall complication rate was 12.102% and capsular contracture (CC) was the most frequent complication. Cosmetic revisions were reported in six studies (9.52%). The use of ADMs and fat grafting appeared to decrease the rate of subsequent CC formation and cosmetic revisions.
conclusionsThe current article represents the first review about implant pocket conversion from a submuscular to a prepectoral plane, delineating its indications, surgical technique, postoperative complications, and functional and esthetic outcomes.
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.