Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35165758›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2022

Risk Comparison Using Autologous Dermal Flap and Absorbable Breast Mesh on Patient Undergoing Subcutaneous Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Matej Patzelt, Lucie Zarubova, Michaela Vecerova, Josef Barta, Martin Ouzky, Andrej Sukop

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matej PatzeltDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. matej.patzelt@fnkv.cz.ORCID 0000-0001-8269-5499
Lucie ZarubovaDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Michaela VecerovaDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Josef BartaDepartment of Radiology, Royal Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Martin OuzkyDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Andrej SukopDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Charles University · CZUniversity Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In patients with large breasts undergoing a subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate implant-based reconstruction, is necessary to perform a mastopexy. The combination of these procedures increases the complication rate. To reduce it, it is necessary to cover the lower pole of the implant. Our study aimed to compare the use of an autologous dermal flap and an absorbable breast mesh. A total of 64 patients without previous breast surgery were divided into 2 groups, each with 32 patients. In the 1st group, the implant was covered with an autologous caudally based dermal flap, sutured to the great pectoral muscle. In the 2nd group, the implant was covered with a fully absorbable breast mesh, fixed caudally in the inframammary fold and cranially to the great pectoral muscle. The incidence of complications, the aesthetic effect, and patient satisfaction were evaluated in a one-year follow-up. In the 1st group, there were 2 cases of seroma, 2 partial nipple-areola complex necrosis, 4 cases of dehiscence in the T-suture, and the malposition of the implant in 2 patients. In the 2nd group, there were 2 cases of seroma, 2 cases of T-junction dehiscence, and 1 case of full nipple-areola complex necrosis, which resulted in implant loss. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the study groups. The dermal flap is more suitable for breasts with pronounced ptosis. The use of the synthetic mesh is suitable for smaller breasts, where the possible dermal flap would be too small to cover the implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyMastectomy, SubcutaneousFemaleHumansMastectomyNecrosisNipplesRetrospective StudiesSeromaSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeAutologous dermal flapBreast reconstructionFully absorbable breast meshRisk-reducing subcutaneous mastectomySilicone breast implants

Identifiers

PMID35165758
OpenAlexW4212987145

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.