Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33634005›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2021

Breast reconstruction in the high-risk population: current review of the literature and practice guidelines.

Margaret S Roubaud, Joseph N Carey, Emma Vartanian, Ketan M Patel

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Margaret S RoubaudDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Joseph N CareyDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Emma VartanianDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ketan M PatelDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of Southern California · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast reconstruction is an important part of the cancer treatment paradigm and the psychosocial benefits are well described in the literature. Notably, breast reconstruction restores both the functional and emotional losses patients experience due to tumor resection. Post-cancer quality of life is an important benchmark of successful treatment; therefore, breast reconstruction is an essential component that should be offered whenever possible. Over time, reconstructive techniques and outcomes have improved dramatically resulting in better patient safety and decreased operative morbidity. When counseling a patient for surgery, the provider must consider all aspects of a patient's health. Ideally, breast cancer patients should be physically, emotionally, and oncologically appropriate candidates for reconstruction. However, in concerted effort to provide opportunities for as many patients as possible, the definition of who is a good candidate for reconstruction has evolved to include higher risk patients. These patients include those with advanced age, nicotine use, obesity, and significant ptosis. With improvements in surgical procedures and perioperative care, this population may also benefit from restorative surgery. However, the exact risk of complications and necessary counseling has gone largely undefined in this population. This article examines particular "high-risk" groups that may be challenging for extirpative and reconstructive surgeons and offers current guidelines for practice.

Indexed as

breastelderlyHigh-riskobeseptoticreconstructionsmoking

Identifiers

PMID33634005
PMCPMC7882327
OpenAlexW3038812064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.