Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36100783›Full record

Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2023

Aesthetic Evaluation of Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Fat Transfer vs. Implants.

Jamilla L M Wederfoort, Alieske Kleeven, Juliette E Hommes, Sander M J Van Kuijk, René R W J van der Hulst, Andrzej Piatkowski, M.D for The Breast trial investigators

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jamilla L M WederfoortDepartment of Plastic-, Reconstructive-, and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. jamilla.wederfoort@mumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4414-4319
Alieske KleevenFaculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Juliette E HommesDepartment of Plastic-, Reconstructive-, and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sander M J Van KuijkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
René R W J van der HulstDepartment of Plastic-, Reconstructive-, and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Andrzej PiatkowskiDepartment of Plastic-, Reconstructive-, and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
M.D for The Breast trial investigators
Maastricht University · NLUniversity Medical Center · USMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

ZonMw grant number 80-83700-98-15505
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutologous fat transfer (AFT) seems to be a new minimal invasive method for total breast reconstruction, yet how patients, surgeons, and laymen evaluate cosmesis is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the aesthetic outcome of AFT (intervention group) for total breast reconstruction post-mastectomy, as compared to implant-based reconstruction (IBR) (control group).

methodsA random and blinded 3D photographic aesthetic outcome study was performed on a selection of 50 patients, scored by three panels: plastic surgeons, breast cancer patients, and laymen. Secondary outcomes included agreement within groups and possible patient characteristics influencing scoring.

resultsBreast cancer patients and plastic surgeons did not differ in the aesthetic scores between the treatment groups. In contrast, the laymen group scored AFT patients lower than IBR patients (- 1.04, p < 0.001). Remarkably, mean given scores were low for all groups and overall agreement within groups was poor (ICC < 0.50). Higher scores were given when subjects underwent a bilateral reconstruction and if a mamilla was present.

conclusionEvaluation of aesthetic outcomes varies greatly. Hence, aesthetic outcome remains a very personal measure and this emphasizes the importance of thorough patient counseling including information on achievable aesthetic results before starting a reconstructive procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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

Breast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyCohort StudiesEstheticsFemaleHumansMastectomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAesthetic outcomeAutologous fat graftingBreast reconstructionCosmetic evaluationImplantsLipectomy

Identifiers

PMID36100783
PMCPMC10070277
OpenAlexW4295754035

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.