SynthesisUpdates in surgery2024
Updated findings of skin flap thickness and residual breast tissue after mastectomy for breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast Cancer Local Recurrence in Patients With and Without Post-Mastectomy Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Techniques for Success in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of clinical outcome between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy of high difficulty score for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence on the ideal retention thickness of skin flap in mastectomy. Residual breast tissue (RBT) after mastectomy still represents an unknown risk for local recurrence or new breast cancer lesions. We made this systematic review to identify the optimal flap after mastectomy with minimal complications and better oncological safety.
methodsA systematic review was performed using MEDLINE search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library with the search terms relevant to skin flap thickness and residual breast tissue in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy.
resultsTwenty-one studies were included of which fifteen studies enrolled 3814 patients who received mastectomy, and additional six studies were based on cadavers or breast specimens. Four studies confirmed the presence of the superficial fascial layer (Camper's fascia) which can theoretically be used as an anatomical marker for flap retention during mastectomy. Two other studies confirmed Camper's fascia deficiency to a greater or lesser extent. The flap thickness ranged from 3.8 mm to 23 mm in 2692 patients of 7 studies, which was related to BMI, breast size, and examination modalities. Two retrospective and one prospective studies confirmed flaps exceeding 5 mm could significantly increase postoperative complications. Nine studies including 1122 patients explored the association among flap thickness, RBT, and complications, 3 studies of which confirmed excessive flap thickness could cause a significant increase in RBT, which proved to be a potential risk factor for local recurrence in 3 studies. Flaps beyond 5 mm were also found to significantly increase the chance of local recurrence in 4 studies.
conclusionCamper's fascia can serve as an ideal demarcation between fat and breast tissue based on most current studies. 5 mm thickness of the flap retention in mastectomy is recommended if Camper's fascia is absent or obscure, through which better cosmetic outcomes and less RBT can be achieved.
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.