ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Augmentation-Mastopexy: Analysis of 95 Consecutive Patients and Critical Appraisal of the Procedure.
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 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implant-based versus autologous mastopexy after massive weight loss: Complications and patient satisfaction.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes after single-stage augmentation mastopexy: A ten-year series and risk stratification model.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Implementation of a Machine Learning Approach Evaluating Risk Factors for Complications after Single-Stage Augmentation Mastopexy.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Safe and Effective Augmentation Mastopexy with Tumescent Local Anesthesia: A Decade of Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-stage mastopexy-augmentation has been demonstrated to be a safe procedure. However, revisions may still be necessary. We evaluate 95 consecutive patients undergoing mastopexy-augmentation and introduce a new surgical technique for the procedure: the modified dual plane technique. In this retrospective study, 95 patients (mean age 34 ± 11 years) underwent mastopexy-augmentation between 2009 and 2019. The procedures were classified as subglandular, dual plane, or modified dual plane technique. The outcome measures included major and minor complications. A total of 19 patients underwent a subglandular procedure, 32 patients a dual plane procedure, and 44 patients a modified dual plane procedure. We observed a high overall complication rate in the subglandular group (n = 12, 63%), dual plane group (n = 15, 47%), and modified dual plane group (n = 10, 23%). Complications leading to implant loss/change occurred in seven patients in the subglandular group (37%), six patients in the dual plane group (19%), and no patient in the modified dual plane group. While we observed a high complication rate in patients undergoing mastopexy-augmentations, the modified dual plane technique was associated with a lower complication rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.