Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37114918›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2024

Superior Sensibility after Full Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Fat Transfer.

Jamilla L M Wederfoort, Sander Schop, Lotte C A van der Broeck, Juliette E Hommes, Sander M J van Kuijk, Floyd Timmermans, Jan Maerten Smit, Esther M Heuts, Thijs de Wit, René R W J van der Hulst and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jamilla L M WederfoortFrom the Departments of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery.
Sander SchopFrom the Departments of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery.
Lotte C A van der BroeckFaculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences, Maastricht University.
Juliette E HommesFrom the Departments of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery.
Sander M J van KuijkClinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment.
Floyd TimmermansPlastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam.
Jan Maerten SmitPlastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam.
Esther M HeutsSurgery, Maastricht University Medical Center.
Thijs de WitPlastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Amphia Hospital.
René R W J van der HulstFrom the Departments of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery.
Andrzej A PiatkowskiFrom the Departments of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery.
Center For Reconstructive Urethral Surgery · ITMaastricht University · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith developments in screening and treatment, survival rates of breast cancer patients are increasing, and so is the number of women opting for breast reconstruction to improve their quality of life. One factor that could play an important role in improving the quality of life is breast sensibility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore breast sensibility in participants of the Breast Reconstruction with External Preexpansion and Autologous Fat Transfer versus Standard Therapy trial: an ongoing randomized controlled trial comparing breast reconstruction with autologous fat transfer (AFT) versus implant-based reconstruction (IBR).

methodsThis study was conducted on participants of the Breast Reconstruction with External Preexpansion and Autologous Fat Transfer versus Standard Therapy trial who were at least 12 months after final surgery. Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments were used to measure skin sensibility in breast cancer patients who underwent breast reconstruction with either AFT or IBR following their mastectomy.

resultsA total of 46 patients were included in this study, resulting in 62 breast reconstructions (28 AFT breasts and 34 IBR breasts). Significantly higher mean monofilament values were found for skin sensibility after AFT (-0.7; P < 0.001), clinically correlating to "diminished protective function," as opposed to the IBR group, with clinical values indicating "loss of protective function."

conclusionsIn this study, the authors found that breast cancer patients who underwent a mastectomy had a significantly better sensibility of the breast following AFT for total breast reconstruction as compared with IBR. Larger studies that include null measurements are required to further explore these noteworthy results of AFT. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyBreastFemaleHumansMastectomyQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37114918
PMCPMC10802979
OpenAlexW4367312852

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.