Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35317462›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022

Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Ian J Saldanha, Justin M Broyles, Gaelen P Adam, Wangnan Cao, Monika Reddy Bhuma, Shivani Mehta, Andrea L Pusic, Laura S Dominici, Ethan M Balk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Cannabis Use and Outcomes in Breast Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Silicone Implant Surface Roughness, Friction, and Wear.Surface topography : metrology and properties · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ian J SaldanhaCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Justin M BroylesDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Gaelen P AdamCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Wangnan CaoCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Monika Reddy BhumaCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Shivani MehtaCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Andrea L PusicDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Plastic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Laura S DominiciDivision of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Ethan M BalkCenter for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.
Department of Health Services · NPPlastic Surgery Hospital · CNBrown University · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women undergoing implant-based reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for breast cancer have numerous options, including timing of IBR relative to radiation and chemotherapy, implant materials, anatomic planes, and use of human acellular dermal matrices. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate these options. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies, from inception to March 23, 2021, without language restriction. We assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods. Results: We screened 15,936 citations. Thirty-six mostly high or moderate risk of bias studies (48,419 patients) met criteria. Timing of IBR before or after radiation may result in comparable physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being, and satisfaction with breasts (all low SoE), and probably comparable risks of implant failure/loss or explantation (moderate SoE). No studies addressed timing relative to chemotherapy. Silicone and saline implants may result in clinically comparable satisfaction with breasts (low SoE). Whether the implant is in the prepectoral or total submuscular plane may not impact risk of infections (low SoE). Acellular dermal matrix use probably increases the risk of implant failure/loss or need for explant surgery (moderate SoE) and may increase the risk of infections (low SoE). Risks of seroma and unplanned repeat surgeries for revision are probably comparable (moderate SoE), and risk of necrosis may be comparable with or without human acellular dermal matrices (low SoE). Conclusions: Evidence regarding IBR options is mostly of low SoE. New high-quality research is needed, especially for timing, implant materials, and anatomic planes of implant placement.

Identifiers

PMID35317462
PMCPMC8932484
OpenAlexW4220691582

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.