Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36817273›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023

Breast Reconstruction Trends in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: Analysis of Practices among Plastic Surgeons in the United States.

Nima Khavanin, Jerry H Yang, Salih Colakoglu, Krystle R Tuano, Jeffrey O Wong, Justin B Cohen, Tae W Chong, Sashank Reddy, David W Mathes, Christodoulos Kaoutzanis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Implant-based reconstruction and adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer patients-current status and DEGRO recommendations.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nima KhavaninDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Jerry H YangSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colo.
Salih ColakogluDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Krystle R TuanoDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colo.
Jeffrey O WongSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colo.
Justin B CohenDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colo.
Tae W ChongDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.
Sashank ReddyDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
David W MathesDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colo.
Christodoulos KaoutzanisDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colo.
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USJohns Hopkins University · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation is an integral part of breast cancer therapy. The ideal type and timing of breast reconstruction with relation to radiation delivery are not well established. The study aimed to identify reconstructive practices among American plastic surgeons in the setting of pre- and postmastectomy radiation. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of members of the American Society of Plastic Surgery was performed. Practice/demographic information and breast reconstruction protocols were queried. Univariate descriptive statistics were calculated, and outcomes were compared across cohorts with χ Results: Overall, 477 plastic surgeons averaging 16.3 years in practice were surveyed. With respect to types of reconstruction, all options were well represented, although nearly 60% preferred autologous reconstruction with prior radiation and 55% preferred tissue expansion followed by implant/autologous reconstruction in the setting of unknown postoperative radiation. There was little consensus on the optimal timing of reconstruction in the setting of possible postoperative radiation. Most respondents wait 4-6 or 7-12 months between the end of radiation and stage 2 implant-based or autologous reconstruction. Common concerns regarding the effect of radiation on reconstructive outcomes included mastectomy flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, capsular contracture, tissue fibrosis, and donor vessel complications. Conclusions: Despite considerable research, there is little consensus on the ideal type and timing of reconstruction in the setting of pre- and postoperative radiation. Understanding how the current body of knowledge is translated into clinical practice by different populations of surgeons allows us to forge a path forward toward more robust, evidence-based guidelines for patient care.

Identifiers

PMID36817273
PMCPMC9937102
OpenAlexW4321224294

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.