Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37200925›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2023

Optimizing perioperative outcomes in autologous breast reconstruction.

Robert G DeVito, Lindsey Craft, Christopher A Campbell, John T Stranix

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert G DeVitoDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Lindsey CraftDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Christopher A CampbellDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
John T StranixDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
University of Virginia Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perioperative optimization in surgery is paramount to the success of an operation. This especially applies to autologous breast reconstruction where small details can make the difference between success and failure. In this article, the authors discuss a wide array of aspects of perioperative care in autologous reconstruction and best practices. Stratification of surgical candidates, including types of autologous breast reconstruction are discussed. The informed consent process, including benefits, alternatives, and risks specific to autologous breast reconstruction is delineated. The importance of operative efficiency and benefits of pre-operative imaging are discussed. The importance and benefits of patient education is examined. Also examined at length are pre-habilitation and its effects on patient recovery, antibiotic prophylaxis including duration and organism coverage, venous thromboembolism risk stratification and prophylaxis, anesthetic and analgesic interventions including multiple types of regional blocks are broken down. Flap monitoring methods and the importance of clinical exam are emphasized, and the potential risks of blood transfusion in free flap patients are examined. Post-operative interventions and determining readiness for discharge are also reviewed. The review of these components of perioperative care allows the reader to gain comprehensive insight into autologous breast reconstruction best practices and the important role perioperative care plays in this patient population.

Indexed as

autologousBreast reconstructiondeep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP)enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)perioperative

Identifiers

PMID37200925
PMCPMC10186172
OpenAlexW4364321358

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.