ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
Patient Perspectives and Quality of Life after Breast Reconstruction and the Impact of Subsequent Revisions.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bibliometric analysis of quality of life in implant-based breast reconstruction.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- A Novel Fat-Augmented Omentum-Based Construct Is a Cost-Effective Alternative for Autologous Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is limited research on the impact of revisional surgery after breast reconstruction on patient experience and postoperative quality of life (QoL). Methods: Patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate implant-based or autologous free-flap breast reconstruction from 2008 to 2020 were reviewed. These patients were categorized by revisions (0-1, 2-3, and 4+) and surveyed on QoL metrics using BREAST-Q and Was It Worth It? (WIWI) questionnaires. BREAST-Q QoL, satisfaction, and WIWI metrics between revision groups were evaluated. Results: Among 252 patients, a total of 150 patients (60%) underwent zero to one revisions, 72 patients (28%) underwent two to three revisions, and 30 patients (12%) underwent four or more revisions. Median follow-up was 6 years (range, 1-11 years). BREAST-Q satisfaction among patients with four or more revisions was significantly lower ( Conclusions: Overall, a majority of patients undergoing revisions after breast reconstruction still have a worthwhile experience. Although reoperations after breast reconstruction do not significantly impact long-term BREAST-Q QoL domains, patients undergoing four or more revisions have significantly lower breast satisfaction, worse QoL, and a postoperative experience worse than expected.
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.