Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37487507›Full record

ArticleHandchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V...2023

[Update and Trends in Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy].

Paul Supper, Lorenz Semmler, Eva Placheta-Györi, Maryana Teufelsbauer, Elissa Harik-Chraim, Christine Radtke

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V..., 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Paul SupperUniversitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität Wien.
Lorenz SemmlerUniversitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität Wien.
Eva Placheta-GyöriUniversitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität Wien.
Maryana TeufelsbauerUniversitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität Wien.
Elissa Harik-ChraimUniversitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität Wien.
Christine RadtkeUniversitätsklinik für Plastische, Rekonstruktive und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Medizinische Universität Wien.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to refinements in operating techniques, autologous breast reconstruction has become part of standard care. It has become more difficult to advise patients due to the expansion of oncologic options for mastectomy, radiation therapy and the variety of reconstructive techniques. The goal of reconstruction is to achieve oncologically clear margins and a long-term aesthetically satisfactory result with a high quality of life. Immediate reconstruction preserves the skin of the breast and its natural form and prevents the psychological trauma associated with mastectomy. However, secondary reconstructions often have a higher satisfaction, since here no restitutio ad integrum is assumed. Alloplastic, i. e., implant-based, breast reconstruction and autologous breast reconstruction are complementary techniques. This article provides an overview of current options for breast reconstruction including patients' satisfaction and quality of life following breast reconstruction. Although immediate reconstruction is still the preferred choice of most patients and surgeons, delayed reconstruction does not appear to compromise clinical or patient-reported outcomes. Recent refinements in surgical techniques and autologous breast reconstruction include stacked-flaps, as well as microsurgical nerve coaptation to restore sensitivity, which lead to improved outcomes and quality of life. Nowadays Skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy, accompanied by improved implant quality, allows immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction as well as reemergence of the prepectoral implantation. The choice of breast reconstruction depends on the type of mastectomy, necessary radiation, individual risk factors, as well as the patient's habitus and wishes. Overall, recent developments in breast reconstruction led to an increase in patient satisfaction, quality of life and aesthetic outcome with oncological safety.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMastectomyQuality of LifeRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37487507
PMCPMC10415025

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.