Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37701300›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2023

Optimizing aesthetic results in autologous breast reconstruction.

Elisa K Atamian, Mark L Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Elisa K AtamianDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.
Mark L SmithDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in breast cancer management have provided most patients with the hope for cure or avoidance of cancer altogether. Such advances have made quality of life much more important after treatment and have led to equally incredible advances in breast reconstruction, to the point where reconstructive goals have altered the way mastectomies are now performed. As experience and expertise in microsurgery has grown, the surgical feat of successfully transferring tissue to restore breast volume is no longer considered an adequate endpoint for aesthetic breast reconstruction. A shift towards patient-centered care has motivated plastic surgeons to adapt their approaches to reconstruction integrating aesthetic principles to the process of recreating a breast mound in order to provide patients with a long-term, natural, and optimal result. Vital to restoring a shapely breast is a thorough preoperative assessment and the understanding of the breast footprint, breast conus, skin envelope and nipple-areolar complex (NAC) position. These aesthetic goals should also extend to the donor site, where adequate contour improvement is sought to offset the price of the donor site scar and the morbidity is minimized. By utilizing strategies for optimizing the NAC position, incorporating novel techniques to ensure core projection, and paying attention to the donor site, the skilled microsurgeon can elevate breast reconstruction to the level of true aesthetic surgery where the reconstructed appearance is superior to the presurgical one.

Indexed as

aestheticsautologousBreast reconstructiondeep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP)microsurgery

Identifiers

PMID37701300
PMCPMC10493624

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.