Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37434844›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of translational research2023

A review of different breast reconstruction methods.

Yuhang Song, Jiahui Zeng, Xingchen Tian, Hongmei Zheng, Xinhong Wu

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuhang SongDepartment of Breast Surgery, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer, Wuhan Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer No. 116 Zhuo Daoquan South Road, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China.
Jiahui ZengDepartment of Breast Surgery, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer, Wuhan Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer No. 116 Zhuo Daoquan South Road, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China.
Xingchen TianDepartment of Breast Surgery, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer, Wuhan Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer No. 116 Zhuo Daoquan South Road, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China.
Hongmei ZhengDepartment of Breast Surgery, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer, Wuhan Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer No. 116 Zhuo Daoquan South Road, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China.
Xinhong WuDepartment of Breast Surgery, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer, Wuhan Clinical Research Center for Breast Cancer No. 116 Zhuo Daoquan South Road, Wuhan 430079, Hubei, China.
Hubei Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

acellular dermal matrix (ADM)autologous breast reconstruction (ABR)Breast cancerdeep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flapimplant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR)latissimus dorsi (LD) flaptransverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap

Identifiers

PMID37434844
PMCPMC10331689
OpenAlexW4383998445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.