ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2022
Risk Comparison Using Autologous Dermal Flap and Absorbable Breast Mesh on Patient Undergoing Subcutaneous Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Short-term Outcomes of Polydioxanone Synthetic Mesh in 2-stage Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Center Comparative Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Article
- Advanced techniques for mastopexy in patients with ptotic breasts requiring nipple-sparing mastectomy: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Techniques for Retaining the Inframammary Fold in Implant-Based Reconstructive Breast Surgery.European journal of breast health · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer Occurrence After Risk-reducing Mastectomies in 274 Cases: A Single Center With More Than 42 Years of Experience.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-sparing Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Synthetic Mesh Outcomes in Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Review
- Modified Bidirectional Adipodermal Mastopexy, Nipple-sparing Mastectomy, and Direct-to-implant Reconstruction in Patients with Significant Ptosis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.