ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021
Patient-reported Outcomes and 3-dimensional Surface Imaging after Risk-reducing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolution of Facial Assessment in Aesthetic Medicine: 3D Imaging, Digital Analysis, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Breast Reconstruction: Current and Promising Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Initial Assessment of VECTRA Three-Dimensional Imaging to Accurately Simulate Breast Volume Changes in Transfeminine Patients: A Mannequin Study.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cosmetic results after risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) are intended to be long-lasting. Long-term follow-up of the cosmetic outcome can be evaluated subjectively by the women themselves through patient-reported outcome measures such as questionnaires, or by using data from three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) to calculate the volume, shape, and symmetry of the reconstructed breasts as a more objective cosmetic evaluation. The study aim was to evaluate the correspondence between patient-reported measures and 3D-SI measurements.
methodsQuestionnaires (EORTC QLQ-BRECON23 and BIS) were sent to women on average 13 [7-20] years after RRM and IBR. Items were preselected for comparison with 3D measurements of women imaged using the VECTRA XT 3D-imaging system at the long-term follow-up.
resultsQuestionnaire responses and 3D images of 58 women, 36 without and 22 with previous breast cancer (where 15 also received radiotherapy) before RRM and IBR, were analyzed. Median age at follow-up was 57 [41-73] years. Patient-reported satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome was positive for both groups. 3D measurements indicated more symmetrical cosmetic results for women without previous breast cancer. No statistically significant associations between patient-reported satisfaction and 3D measurements were found.
conclusionsSatisfaction with the long-term cosmetic outcome after RRM and IBR was, in general, positive when evaluated by the women. 3D-SI could be used as a more objective approach to assess the cosmetic outcome in terms of volume and shape-symmetry; however, it does not directly translate to the patient-reported satisfaction.
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.