Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36769386›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Long-Term Results after Autologous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP versus PAP Flaps Based on Quality of Life and Aesthetic Outcome Analysis.

Angela Augustin, Evi M Morandi, Selina Winkelmann, Ines Schoberleitner, Daniel Egle, Magdalena Ritter, Thomas Bauer, Tanja Wachter, Dolores Wolfram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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.

Angela AugustinDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5659-9508
Evi M MorandiDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6953-0104
Selina WinkelmannDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9655-6086
Ines SchoberleitnerDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7988-722X
Daniel EgleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0283-8176
Magdalena RitterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Thomas BauerDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Tanja WachterDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Dolores WolframDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0920-7211

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: This work aimed to conduct a comparative study, providing long-term data about patient-reported outcome measures and donor site scar assessments, as well as an aesthetic evaluation of the reconstructed breasts in patients with DIEP versus PAP flap breast reconstruction. (2) Methods: This prospective, single-center, matched cohort study included a total of 36 patients after DIEP and PAP flap breast reconstruction. The evaluation was carried out using the Breast-Q and POSAS questionnaire, as well as the Breast Aesthetic Scale for cosmetic analysis, by four plastic surgeons. (3) Results: The postoperative Breast-Q evaluation revealed no significant differences between both patient groups for the categories of the physical well-being of the donor site, the physical well-being of the breast, and satisfaction with the breast. A scar evaluation of the donor site region showed equivalent results for the thigh and abdomen regions, concerning the overall opinion of the patients and the observers. There was no significant difference between both methods of reconstruction for all aspects of breast aesthetics. (4) Conclusions: Similar results for donor site morbidity, scar quality, and the aesthetic outcome of the breasts in both the DIEP and PAP patient groups have been demonstrated. Hence, in those cases suitable for both types of reconstruction, the decision can be based on factors such as patients' lifestyles, leisure activities, and preferences.

Indexed as

aesthetic outcomeautologous breast reconstructionbreast cancerBreast-QDIEP flapdonor site morbiditymastectomyPAP flapquality of lifescar quality

Identifiers

PMID36769386
PMCPMC9917944

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.