Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35503389›Full record

ReviewAnnals of surgical oncology2022

Home Recovery After Mastectomy: Review of Literature and Strategies for Implementation American Society of Breast Surgeons Working Group.

Kandice Ludwig, Barbara Wexelman, Steven Chen, Gloria Cheng, Sarah DeSnyder, Negar Golesorkhi, Rachel Greenup, Ted James, Bernard Lee, Barbara Pockaj and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Value of Ambulatory Modified Radical Mastectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Kandice LudwigIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. kaludwig@iupui.edu.
Barbara WexelmanTrihealth Cancer Institute, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Steven ChenOasisMD, San Diego, CA, USA.
Gloria ChengUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Sarah DeSnyderMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Negar Golesorkhi, Venice, FL, USA.
Rachel GreenupYale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Ted JamesHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Bernard LeeHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Barbara PockajMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Brooke VuongKaiser Permanente Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Sara FluhartyTrihealth Cancer Institute, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Eileen Fuentes, New York, NY, USA.
Roshni RaoColumbia University, New York, NY, USA.
American Society of Breast Surgeons Patient Safety Quality Committee
Harvard University · USTriHealth · USColumbia University · USIndiana University School of MedicineKaiser Permanente Sacramento Medical Center · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USNew York Proton Center · USOASIS Clinic · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USVenice Family Clinic · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPractices regarding recovery after mastectomy vary significantly, including overnight stay versus discharge same day. Expanded use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) algorithms and the recent COVID pandemic have led to increased number of patients who undergo home recovery after mastectomy (HRAM).

methodsThe Patient Safety Quality Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons created a multispecialty working group to review the literature evaluating HRAM after mastectomy with and without implant-based reconstruction. A literature review was performed regarding this topic; the group then developed guidance for patient selection and tools for implementation.

resultsMultiple, retrospective series have reported that patients discharged day of mastectomy have similar risk of complications compared with those kept overnight, including risk of hematoma (0-5.1%). Multimodal strategies that improve nausea and analgesia improve likelihood of HRAM. Patients who undergo surgery in ambulatory surgery centers and by high-volume breast surgeons are more likely to be discharged day of surgery. When evaluating unplanned return to care, the only significant factors are African American race and increased comorbidities.

conclusionsReview of current literature demonstrates that HRAM is a safe option in appropriate patients. Choice of method of recovery should consider patient factors, such as comorbidities and social situation, and requires input from the multidisciplinary team. Preoperative education regarding pain management, drain care, and after-hour access to medical care are crucial components to a successful program. Additional investigation is needed as these programs become more prevalent to assess quality measures such as unplanned return to care, complications, and patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCOVID-19SurgeonsFemaleHumansMastectomyRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35503389
OpenAlexW4225300720

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.