Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36944866›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2023

Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient's Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q.

Annalisa Cogliandro, Rosa Salzillo, Riccardo De Bernardis, Francesco Saverio Loria, Valeria Petrucci, Mauro Barone, Stefania Tenna, Barbara Cagli, Paolo Persichetti

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Annalisa CogliandroFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy. a.cogliandro@policlinicocampus.it.ORCID 0000-0001-9497-6757
Rosa SalzilloFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy.
Riccardo De BernardisFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy.
Francesco Saverio LoriaFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy.
Valeria PetrucciFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy.
Mauro BaroneFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy.
Stefania TennaFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy.
Barbara CagliFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy.
Paolo PersichettiFondazione Policlinico Universitario, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy.
Campus Bio Medico University Hospital · ITUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the years, plastic surgery has acquired a central role in the integrated treatment of breast cancer. Direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction using the prepectoral approach has emerged as an alternative to reconstruction using the subpectoral technique to overcome the complications arising from this type of surgery resulting as a consequence of muscle elevation. The satisfaction and quality of life of patients undergoing DTI breast reconstruction were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire, comparing the prepectoral and the subpectoral technique.

methodsA single-center cross-sectional study on patients who underwent mastectomy and DTI breast reconstruction at our institution between 2013 and 2021 was conducted. Eighty-one patients were included and mainly divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: 52 patients undergoing a subpectoral breast reconstruction approach and 29 patients receiving a prepectoral breast reconstruction. In order to assess the quality of life, the postoperative BREAST-Q module was administered electronically to the enrolled patients.

resultsHigher scores in BREAST-Q domains were recorded from patients who underwent mastectomy and breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique: psychosocial well-being (P<0.0085), sexual well-being (P<0.0120), physical well-being: lymphoedema (P<0.0001) and satisfaction with information received (P<0.0045). There were further statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications (p<0.0465) and the need for reoperation (p<0.0275).

conclusionsPatients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with prepectoral technique were more satisfied in terms of psychosocial, sexual and also physical well-being. These patients also had statistically lower complications and reoperations compared to patients who received breast reconstruction with the subpectoral technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors 38 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 39 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 40 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 41 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Breast ImplantationBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMastectomyPatient SatisfactionPersonal SatisfactionQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesBREAST-QBreast reconstructionDTIImplantMastectomyPlastic surgeryPrepectoralPROMsSubpectoral

Identifiers

PMID36944866
OpenAlexW4353018913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.