Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36998148›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2023

Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort.

Leigh Johnson, Paul White, Chris Holcombe, Joe O'Donoghue, Ranjeet Jeevan, John Browne, Patricia Fairbrother, Mairead MacKenzie, Carmel Gulliver-Clarke, Syed Mohiuddin and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Leigh JohnsonBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Paul WhiteApplied Statistics Group, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Chris HolcombeLinda McCartney Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Joe O'DonoghueDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Ranjeet JeevanDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
John BrowneSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Patricia FairbrotherIndependent Cancer Patients Voice (ICPV), London, UK.
Mairead MacKenzieIndependent Cancer Patients Voice (ICPV), London, UK.
Carmel Gulliver-ClarkeWestern Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing, UK.
Syed MohiuddinNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
Will HollingworthBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-6254
Shelley PotterBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6977-312X
The Patients Association · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBSouthmead Hospital · GBUniversity College Cork · IEUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

Applied Research CollaborationNational Institute for Health ResearchNIHRNIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of BristolResearch for Patient Benefit Programme PB-PG-0817-20020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen considering immediate breast reconstruction require high-quality information about the likely need for secondary reconstruction and the long-term risk of revisional surgery to make fully informed decisions about different reconstructive options. Such data are currently lacking. This study aimed to explore the impact of reconstruction type on the number of revisions and secondary reconstructions performed 3, 5, and 8 years after immediate breast reconstruction in a large population-based cohort.

methodsWomen undergoing unilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ in England between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2015 were identified from National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics. Numbers of revisions and secondary reconstructions in women undergoing primary definitive immediate breast reconstruction were compared by procedure type at 3, 5, and 8 years after index surgery.

resultsSome 16 897 women underwent immediate breast reconstruction with at least 3 years' follow-up. Of these, 14 069 had a definitive reconstruction with an implant only (5193), latissimus dorsi flap with (3110) or without (2373) an implant, or abdominal free flap (3393). Women undergoing implant-only reconstruction were more likely to require revision, with 69.5 per cent (747 of 1075) undergoing at least one revision by 8 years compared with 49.3 per cent (1568 of 3180) in other reconstruction groups. They were also more likely to undergo secondary reconstruction, with the proportion of women having further reconstructive procedures increasing over time: 12.8 per cent (663 of 5193) at 3 years, 14.3 per cent (535 of 3752) at 5 years, and 17.6 per cent (189 of 1075) at 8 years.

conclusionLong-term rates of revisions and secondary reconstructions were considerably higher after primary implant-based reconstruction than autologous procedures. These results should be shared with patients to support informed decision-making.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyFemaleHumansMastectomyRetrospective StudiesState MedicineSurgical Flaps

Identifiers

PMID36998148
PMCPMC10364508
OpenAlexW4362078370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.