ReviewAmerican journal of translational research2023
A review of different breast reconstruction methods.
Review in American journal of translational research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Demonstrate Equivalent Psychiatric Outcomes at Long-Term Follow-Up: Results from a Multi-Intuitional Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction with a Novel Collagen Matrix Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
- A New Technique of Breast Splitting: An Alternative Breast Reconstruction Technique Using a Pedicled Flap From the Contralateral Breast.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Article
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Toward Breast Reconstruction Among Breast Surgery Healthcare Professionals in China.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Postoperative Outcomes in Prepectoral Versus Retropectoral Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Across Body Mass Index Categories.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Sentiment Analysis of Autologous Breast Reconstruction Using Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
- Complications and patient-reported outcomes after radiotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction: a retrospective study from a large Chinese breast disease center.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: a disputed topic.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Two-Dimensional Mammography Imaging Techniques for Screening Women with Silicone Breast Implants: A Pilot Phantom Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Revolutionising Breast Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Innovations in Breast Surgery and Reconstruction.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast reconstruction is necessary for the comprehensive treatment of breast cancer. For successful breast reconstruction, the timing of surgery and the surgical methods used are vital. The methods of breast reconstruction can be divided into implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and autologous breast reconstruction (ABR). With the development of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), IBBR has become more common in clinical practice. However, the choice for the position in which the implant should be placed (prepectoral or subpectoral) and the use of ADM is currently controversial. We summarized the differences in indications, complications, advantages, disadvantages, and prognosis between IBBR and ABR. We also compared the indications and complications of different flaps in ABR and found that the LD (latissimus dorsi) flap is suitable for Asian women who have a low body mass index (BMI) and a low incidence of obesity, while the DIEP (deep inferior epigastric perforator) flap can be used in patients with severe breast ptosis. In conclusion, immediate breast reconstruction with an implant or expander is the primary method, as it causes lesser scarring and requires a shorter time compared to ABR. However, for patients with severe breast ptosis or reluctant to receive an implant, ABR can be performed for a satisfying cosmetic result. Indications and complications of different flaps in ABR are also inconsistent. Surgeons should make surgical plans based on the preferences and conditions of each patient. In the future, breast reconstruction methods need to be further refined, and minimally invasive and personalized approaches need to be implemented to provide more benefits to patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37434844PMC10331689W4383998445What 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.