Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35462753›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer : basic and clinical research2022

Defining the Ideal Breast Reconstruction Procedure After Mastectomy From the Patient Perspective: A Retrospective Analysis.

Ilias G Petrou, Céline Thomet, Omid Jamei, Ali Modarressi, Daniel F Kalbermatten, Brigitte Pittet-Cuénod

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer : basic and clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Ilias G PetrouDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive and Esthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0394-1194
Céline ThometDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive and Esthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Omid JameiDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive and Esthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ali ModarressiDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive and Esthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Daniel F KalbermattenDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive and Esthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Brigitte Pittet-CuénodDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive and Esthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of breast cancer patients undergo immediate or secondary breast reconstruction, but the ideal method in terms of patient satisfaction remains ambiguous. We compared the 3 most common breast reconstruction techniques to determine patient satisfaction and objective outcomes. Methods: Retrospective study of 184 patients with breast cancer who underwent a reconstructive procedure between 1993 and 2011 at our institution. Procedures evaluated were implant-based reconstruction (IBR) alone, latissimus dorsi (LD) flap reconstruction with/without implant, and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap reconstruction. A retrospective patient satisfaction questionnaire was sent to all women. Twenty patients from each subgroup were matched to conduct a standardized objective assessment of the sensitivity of their reconstructed breast. A blinded photographic evaluation was also performed by 3 independent observers to assess the esthetic aspect and symmetry. Results: DIEP obtained significantly higher average scores regarding the esthetic outcome, immediate reconstruction impact, and overall score in the questionnaire evaluation. The IBR had the best results in the somatosensory evaluation, with DIEP scoring better than LD. DIEP received higher scores on average than LD for the criteria of size and symmetry in the esthetic evaluation. No statistically significant differences were observed between IBR and DIEP. Conclusions: Good results were reported overall for all breast reconstruction procedures, with more reserved scores for LD. The DIEP reconstruction appeared to be the most satisfactory and best experienced reconstruction method for patients, despite the complexity of the intervention. Clinicians should be encouraged to consider DIEP as the principal choice for breast reconstruction.

Indexed as

autologous breast reconstructionBreast cancerbreast reconstructiondeep inferior epigastric perforatorimplant-based reconstructionlatissimus dorsi flap

Identifiers

PMID35462753
PMCPMC9021510
OpenAlexW4226094656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.