Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37605028›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024

Minimally Invasive and Innovative Management of Prosthesis Infections in Endoscopic-Assisted Breast Reconstruction.

Yanyan Xie, Xiaoxia Hu, Zhenggui Du, Faqing Liang, Qing Lv, Bo Li

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Perioperative management of direct-to-implant-based breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients and West China Hospital experiences].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yanyan Xie *Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Xiaoxia Hu *Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Zhenggui DuDepartment of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Faqing LiangDepartment of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Street, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Qing LvDepartment of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Street, Chengdu, 610041, China. lvqingwestchina@163.com.
Bo LiDepartment of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guoxue Street, Chengdu, 610041, China. Libo20230909@163.com.
West China Hospital of Sichuan University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplant infection continues to be the most common complication of breast reconstruction, and it can lead to serious consequences of implant loss. Recently, endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is being performed more frequently, with similar prosthetic infection incidence compared to conventional techniques. But there is little information published in the literature on the management of periprosthetic infection in endoscopic-assisted breast reconstruction.

methodsA retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent endoscope-assisted breast reconstruction and developed periprosthetic infection between January 2020 and December 2022. Prosthesis infection was defined as any case where antibiotics were given, beyond the surgeon's standard perioperative period, in response to clinical signs such as swelling, pain, erythema, increased temperature, fever, etc. We summarized our clinical approach and treatment protocol for periprosthetic infection patients. Collected data include preoperative basic information, surgical details, postoperative data, and outcomes.

resultsA total of 580 patients (713 reconstructions) underwent endoscopic-assisted immediate breast reconstruction. There were 58 patients developed periprosthetic infection, 14 of whom had bilateral prosthesis reconstruction with unilateral prosthesis infection. The incidence of infection was 10.0%. Average follow-up was 17.3 ± 8.9 months (range = 2-37 months). Of the 58 patients, 53 (91.4%) patients successful salvaged implant and 5(8.6%) patients removed prosthesis. During follow-up, Baker III capsular contracture occurred in 2 patients (3.8%) who had radiotherapy.

conclusionOur management of prosthesis infections in endoscopic-assisted breast reconstruction is easy, minimally invasive, and inexpensive. This method can be repeated if the implant infection does not improve after the first drainage. What's more, our data suggest that our prosthesis salvage of periprosthetic infection is effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Breast ImplantationBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyMastectomy, SubcutaneousFemaleHumansMastectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBreast reconstructionEndoscopic-assisted techniqueManagementProsthesis infection

Identifiers

PMID37605028
OpenAlexW4386021873

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.