Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33680677›Full record

ReviewPlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021

Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Tissue: Current Methods and Techniques.

Ramon Garza, Oscar Ochoa, Minas Chrysopoulo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Advanced Hydrogels in Breast Cancer Therapy.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. A review of different breast reconstruction methods.American journal of translational research · 2023
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Ramon GarzaPlastic Reconstructive & Microsurgical Associates, San Antonio, Tex.
Oscar OchoaPlastic Reconstructive & Microsurgical Associates, San Antonio, Tex.
Minas ChrysopouloPlastic Reconstructive & Microsurgical Associates, San Antonio, Tex.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast reconstruction is an option that should be considered for any patient facing a mastectomy. Autologous breast reconstruction provides the benefits of excellent longterm results, natural appearance, natural feel, and the best opportunity for sensory restoration. These factors lead many patients to choose autologous tissue over implant-based reconstruction. With improved anatomic and technical knowledge, the donor site morbidity previously associated with abdominally based autologous reconstruction has been significantly reduced. Today, the DIEP flap is the preferred autologous method allowing restoration of a "natural," aesthetic breast with potential for sensation while simultaneously minimizing abdominal donor site morbidity. Alternative flaps and adjunctive procedures provide options when dealing with patients who present with challenging clinical scenarios because of an inadequate abdominal donor site. This paper reviews current methods employed by a high volume breast reconstruction practice to achieve these goals.

Identifiers

PMID33680677
PMCPMC7929567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.