Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36187284›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022

Functional and Psychosocial Outcomes following Innervated Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Fuad Abbas, Kara Klomparens, Richard Simman

Abstract 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Counselling Framework for GermlineCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

3 authors.

Fuad AbbasWayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI.
Kara KlomparensWayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI.
Richard SimmanJobst Vascular Institute, ProMedica Health Network, Toledo, Ohio.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the incidence of breast cancer, breast cancer survival rates, and prophylactic mastectomies all increasing, efforts to optimize breast reconstruction and improve quality of life are becoming increasingly important. Nerve coaptation has been investigated for its potential to remedy the clinical and psychosocial deficits in newly reconstructed breasts. The purpose of this review is to gauge the efficacy of nerve coaptation during breast reconstruction in creating worthwhile benefits in both objective and subjective dimensions of sensation. Methods: A Prospero registered systematic review was conducted. Databases including PubMed, SCOPUS, and ScienceDirect were screened using search terms "innervation," "breast reconstruction," and "neurotization" and relevant inclusion criteria. Results: Twenty-three studies were found that met parameters for inclusion. We identified studies that assessed DIEP-based reconstruction (7), TRAM-based reconstruction (9), implant-based reconstruction (2), and five studies that looked at a variety of reconstructive modalities. Monofilament testing was the most common modality used to assess sensation, while pain, temperature, and pressure thresholds were assessed more infrequently. Various tools were used to measure psychosocial impacts, including the BREAST-Q. While the methods for evaluation of both aspects of sensation were heterogenous, there was a trend towards improved outcomes with neurotization. Conclusions: The results of this review show promising improvements in clinical and psychosocial outcomes in innervated breasts compared to non-innervated breasts. However, the heterogeneity of studies in the literature indicates that more multi-center studies with standardized methodology including the BREAST-Q, sensory testing and complication analysis are needed to adequately demonstrate the value of neurotization in breast reconstruction.

Identifiers

PMID36187284
PMCPMC9521786

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.