ArticleJPRAS open2021
Can we safely accommodate larger volume implants in inframammary fold nipple sparing mastectomy compared to nipple sacrificing mastectomy in implant-based reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix?
Article in JPRAS open, 2021. 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.
- Three-Dimensional Laser Scanning-Assisted Prosthetic Breast Augmentation for Breast Asymmetry.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Trial
- Short- to Medium-term Outcome of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Direct-to-implant Reconstruction using Acellular Dermal Matrix.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to analyse if inframammary fold nipple sparing mastectomy (IMF NSM) could safely accommodate larger implants in relation to weight of the breast as opposed to nipple sacrificing mastectomy (NSacriM) in implant reconstruction with biological mesh.
methodsA review of prospectively collected data of implant-based reconstruction using biological mesh between Nov 2016 and December 2019 by a single surgeon. The volume of the implant was measured against the weight of the breast. The data was analysed using Chi-squared test and independent
resultsSixty-five patients had 86 implant reconstructions during this period. Median follow-up was 18 months (1-38). There was no statistical difference between IMF NSM and NSacriM with regard to smoking, obesity (BMI>30) and radiotherapy (
conclusionIMF NSM allows safer insertion of larger volume implants in relation to the weight of the breast as opposed to NSacriM.
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.