ArticleThe British journal of surgery2023
Long-term patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: population-based cohort study.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a nursing-sensitive quality evaluation indicator system for perioperative care in breast reconstruction surgery: A Delphi study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Endoscope-Assisted Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap for Breast Reconstruction: The First Reported Case in Japan.Journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Improving the Patient Experience in Breast Reconstruction: ERAS and Beyond.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction between smooth, textured, and polyurethane-covered implants: results from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Review
- Patient-reported outcomes 3 and 18 months after mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Determinants of Demoralization Syndrome and Social Support Among Patients with Breast Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Updates on Breast Reconstruction: Surgical Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions.World journal of oncology · 2024Review
- Back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: a disputed topic.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Timing and type of breast reconstruction in SweBRO 3: long-term outcomes.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Understanding decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery as an alternative to a mastectomy in early breast cancer: UK ANTHEM qualitative study.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast reconstruction is offered to improve quality of life for women after mastectomy for breast cancer, but information regarding the long-term patient-reported outcomes of different reconstruction procedures is currently lacking. The Brighter study aimed to evaluate long-term patient-reported outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in a population-based cohort.
methodsWomen who underwent mastectomy with IBR for breast cancer in England between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 were identified from National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics. Surviving women were invited to complete the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L™, and ICECAP-A at least 12 years after the index procedure. Questionnaires were scored according to developers' instructions and compared by IBR type.
resultsSome 1236 women underwent IBR; 343 (27.8 per cent) had 2-stage expander/implant, 630 (51.0 per cent) latissimus dorsi, and 263 (21.3 per cent) abdominal flap reconstructions, with a mean(s.d.) follow-up of 13.3(0.5) years. Women who underwent abdominal flap reconstruction reported higher scores in all BREAST-Q domains than those who had other procedures. These differences remained statistically significant and clinically meaningful after adjusting for age, ethnicity, geographical region, socioeconomic status, smoking, BMI, and complications. The greatest difference was seen in scores for satisfaction with breasts; women who had abdominal flap reconstructions reported scores that were 13.17 (95 per cent c.i. 9.48 to 16.87) points; P < 0.001) higher than those among women who had two-stage expander/implant procedures. Women who underwent latissimus dorsi reconstruction reported significantly more pain/discomfort on the EQ-5D-5L™, but no other differences between procedures were seen.
conclusionLong-term patient-reported outcomes are significantly better following abdominal flap reconstruction than other traditional procedure types. These findings should be shared with women considering IBR to help them make informed decisions about their surgical options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.