Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37644192›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024

Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction: Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Two-Stages vs Single-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Nicola Zingaretti, Michele Piana, Laura Battellino, Francesca Galvano, Francesco De Francesco, Michele Riccio, Yvonne Beorchia, Luigi Castriotta, Pier Camillo Parodi

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicola ZingarettiDepartment of Medical Area (DAME), Clinic of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital of Udine, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. nicola.zingaretti@asufc.sanita.fvg.it.ORCID 0000-0002-1575-0029
Michele PianaDepartment of Medical Area (DAME), Clinic of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital of Udine, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Laura BattellinoSchool of Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Francesca GalvanoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesco De FrancescoAccademia del Lipofilling, Research and Training Center in Regenerative Surgery, Jesi, Italy.
Michele RiccioAccademia del Lipofilling, Research and Training Center in Regenerative Surgery, Jesi, Italy.
Yvonne BeorchiaInstitute of Hygiene and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Luigi CastriottaInstitute of Hygiene and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Pier Camillo ParodiDepartment of Medical Area (DAME), Clinic of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital of Udine, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
University of Udine · ITAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo-stages pre-pectoral breast reconstruction may confer advantages over direct to implant (DTI) and subpectoral reconstruction in selected patients who have no indication for autologous reconstruction. The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate and compare the incidence of capsular contracture in the pre-pectoral two-stages technique versus the direct to implant technique. Complications related to the two surgical techniques and patient satisfaction were also evaluated.

methodsA retrospective review of 45 two stages and 45 Direct-to-implant, DTI patients was completed. Acellular dermal matrix was used in all patients. An evaluation of anthropometric and clinical parameters, surgical procedures and complications was conducted. Minimum follow-up was 12 months after placement of the definitive implant.

resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the rate of capsular contracture in the two groups. Rippling occurred more in DTI reconstruction. In the two-stages reconstruction, lipofilling was applied more often and there was a higher incidence of seroma. Patient satisfaction extrapolated from the Breast Q questionnaire was better for patients submitted to two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

conclusionDual-stage pre-pectoral reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix appears to be a good reconstructive solution in patients with relative contraindications for one-stage heterologous reconstruction with definitive prosthesis and no desire for autologous reconstruction.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantationMammaplastyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionAcellular DermisAdultBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEstheticsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMastectomyMiddle AgedPectoralis MusclesADMBreast expanderDTI prosthetic reconstructionPre-pectoral breast reconstructionTwo-stages reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID37644192
PMCPMC11093833
OpenAlexW4386249294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.