Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33216178›Full record

ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2021

Guiding Nipple-Areola Complex Reconstruction: Literature Review and Proposal of a New Decision-Making Algorithm.

Guido Paolini, Guido Firmani, Francesca Briganti, Michail Sorotos, Fabio Santanelli di Pompeo

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Domeless Arrow Flap: A Strategy to Enhance Realism in Reconstructed Nipples.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic in resource-limited settings.GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Guido PaoliniFaculty of Medicine and Psychology, Plastic Surgery Department, Sapienza University of Rome-Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035-1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Guido FirmaniFaculty of Medicine and Psychology, Plastic Surgery Department, Sapienza University of Rome-Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035-1039, 00189, Rome, Italy. guido.firmani@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5806-1530
Francesca BrigantiFaculty of Medicine and Psychology, Plastic Surgery Department, Sapienza University of Rome-Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035-1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Michail SorotosDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry "Scuola Medica Salernitana", PhD School of Translational Medicine of Development and Active Ageing, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Salerno, Italy.
Fabio Santanelli di PompeoChair of Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035-1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea · ITUniversity of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNipple-areola complex reconstruction (NAR) most commonly represents the finishing touch to breast reconstruction (BR). Nipple presence is particularly relevant to the patient's psyche, beyond any shadow of doubt. Many reconstructive options have been described in time. Surgery is easy, but final result is often disappointing on the long run.

methodsThe goal of this manuscript is to analyze and classify knowledge concerning NAR techniques and the factors that influence success, and then to elaborate a practical evidence-based algorithm. Out of the 3136 available articles as of August 8th, 2020, we selected 172 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria, which we subdivided into 5 main topics of discussion, being the various NAR techniques; patient factors (including patient selection, timing and ideal position); dressings; potential complications and finally, outcomes/patient satisfaction.

resultsWe found 92 articles describing NAR techniques, 41 addressing patient factors (out of which 17 discussed patient selection, 14 described ideal NAC location, 10 described appropriate timing), 10 comparing dressings, 7 studying NAR complications, and 22 addressing outcomes and patient satisfaction. We elaborated a comprehensive decision-making algorithm to help narrow down the choice among NAR techniques, and choose the correct strategy according to the various scenarios, and particularly the BR technique and skin envelope.

conclusionsNo single NAR technique provides definitive results, which is why we believe there is no "end-all be-all solution". NAR must be approached as a case-by-case situation. Furthermore, despite NAR being such a widely discussed topic in scientific literature, we still found a lack of clinical trials to allow for more thorough recommendations to be elaborated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Indexed as

MammaplastyNipplesAlgorithmsBandagesHumansPatient SatisfactionRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBreast cancerBreast reconstructionNipple-areola complexNipple-areola reconstructionNipple-areola surgery

Identifiers

PMID33216178
PMCPMC8144123
OpenAlexW3101173308

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.