ArticleGland surgery2022
Comparing complications and perioperative teams in microsurgical breast reconstruction: retrospective cohort study.
Article in Gland surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Subspecialization with dedicated perioperative teams has become common practice in some surgical disciplines. While surgeon experience, the number of surgeons involved, and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are known factors affecting the outcome after microsurgical breast reconstruction, the impact of the perioperative team has not been studied. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study consisting of a chart review of all patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction from January 2019-April 2020. Surgery was performed by three microsurgeons at two institutions with different perioperative teams-one being a small clinic [private clinic (PC), 33 beds] and the other being a larger hospital [corporate hospital (CH), 335 beds]. Patients were grouped into two cohorts according to the institution where surgery was performed. The primary outcomes studied were frequency of revision surgery, flap loss and patient length-of-stay (LOS). Results: One hundred and fifty microsurgical breast reconstructions were performed in 125 patients. Demographic data [age, body mass index (BMI), current tobacco use, donor site] was found statistically comparable between both cohorts. In the PC cohort with fewer perioperative care providers, lower rates of revision surgery and flap loss were observed (P value =0.009 and 0.04, respectively). LOS was not significantly different between the two cohorts (P value =0.44). Conclusions: The outcome of microsurgical breast reconstruction depends on multiple factors. In this study, fewer flap complications occurred at the small clinic. One reason among others might be the lower number of perioperative care providers involved and hence higher likelihood of sharing microsurgical cases, which facilitates routine and ensures less variability in care. The value of perioperative team subspecialization in microsurgical breast reconstruction needs to be assessed in prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.