SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022
A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prepectoral and partial subpectoral immediate single-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using ADM.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Oncologic outcomes after poly-4-hydroxybutyrate scaffold in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a retrospective, multi-center cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Current Practices and Evolving Trends in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in China: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Predictive Factors of Capsular Contracture in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction and its Surgical Approach.Archives of plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Recognizing and Managing Breast Implant Complications: A Review for Healthcare Providers Who Treat Women Who Underwent Breast Implant-Based Surgery.International journal of women's health · 2025Review
- Nipple-Sparing Skin-Reducing Mastectomy and Immediate Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A New Surgical Approach.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
- Psychosocial Outcomes of Subpectoral vs. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Analysis.Cureus · 2024Article
- Technical consideration for breast reconstruction in patients requiring neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiotherapy: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Review
- A review of different breast reconstruction methods.American journal of translational research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and mesh reopened the possibility for the prepectoral single-stage breast reconstruction (PBR). The complications of single-stage breast reconstruction after PRB are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction. Our aim was to evaluate the different postoperative complications between patients receiving prepectoral breast reconstruction and subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR) on single-stage breast reconstruction.
methodsA comprehensive research on databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries was performed to retrieve literature evaluating the effect of implant plane on single-stage breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. All included studies were evaluated the complications after single-stage breast reconstruction. Only studies comparing patients who underwent prepectoral reconstruction with a control group who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included.
resultsA total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1724 patients. In general, compared with SBR group, the PBR significantly reduced the risk of total complications (including seroma, hematoma, necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, capsular contraction, implant loss/remove, and rippling) after single-stage breast reconstruction (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67, p < 0.001). Compared with the SBR group, the PBR had remarkably decreased capsular contracture (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58, p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03).
conclusionThe PBR is a safe single-stage breast reconstruction with fewer postoperative complications. It is an alternative surgical method for SBR.
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.