Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36185209›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Clinical outcomes following robotic versus conventional DIEP flap in breast reconstruction: A retrospective matched study.

Min Jeong Lee, Jongmin Won, Seung Yong Song, Hyung Seok Park, Jee Ye Kim, Hye Jung Shin, Young In Kwon, Dong Won Lee, Na Young Kim

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07222514 (Feasibility and Safety of Single-Port Robotic-Assisted DIEP Flap Harvest for Breast Reconstruction), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07222514 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility and Safety of Single-Port Robotic-Assisted DIEP Flap Harvest for Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Evaluation

TypeinterventionalSponsorVanderbilt University Medical CenterRan2026 to 2028Enrolled4ConditionsDIEP Flap Breast ReconstructionArmsSingle-Port Robotic System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Min Jeong LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Jongmin WonDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Seung Yong SongDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Hyung Seok ParkDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Jee Ye KimDepartment of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Hye Jung ShinBiostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Young In KwonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Dong Won LeeDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Na Young KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A robotic deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap created through a totally extraperitoneal approach minimizes violation of the donor site, which may lead to postoperative pain reduction and rapid recovery. The authors compared the clinical outcomes of robotic and conventional DIEP flap breast reconstructions. Methods: Data from consecutive patients who underwent mastectomy with DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction between July 2017 and January 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into robotic and conventional DIEP groups, and the two groups were matched using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. They were compared based on the reconstruction time, drainage amount, postoperative pain, rescue analgesics, hospital stay, complications, and BREAST-Q scores. Results: After matching, a dataset of 207 patients was formed, including 21 patients in the robotic DIEP group and 186 patients in the conventional DIEP group. The mean reconstruction time was longer in the robotic DIEP group than in the conventional DIEP group ( Conclusions: This study suggests that a robotic DIEP flap offers enhanced postoperative recovery, accompanied by a reduction in postoperative pain and hospital stay.

Indexed as

breast reconstructionclinical outcomeconventional DIEPdeep inferior epigastric perforator flaprobotic DIEProbot surgery

Identifiers

PMID36185209
PMCPMC9515388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.