Observational studyThe British journal of surgery2024
Long-term patient-reported back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: case-control cohort study.
Observational study in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Endoscopic-Assisted Latissimus Dorsi Muscle Flap for Chest Wall Reconstruction in Poland Syndrome: Clinical Application and Literature Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Review
- Sentiment Analysis of Autologous Breast Reconstruction Using Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
- Article
- Back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: a disputed topic.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Comparative outcomes in breast reconstruction: autologous techniques and long-term functionality.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- High cure rate and satisfaction in patients with periductal mastitis via the latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap technique: a retrospective study.Gland surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSacrifice of the latissimus dorsi (LD) muscle might entail donor site morbidity when used in delayed breast reconstruction. Previous studies are small, have short follow-up, and demonstrate diverging results. The aims of this study were to evaluate long-term patient-reported effects on shoulder and back function following LD flap harvest, and to investigate predictors for a worse outcome.
methodThis is a retrospective observational case-control cohort study. Cases were all patients who had undergone an LD flap reconstruction during the years 2007-2017. Controls were patients reconstructed with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap during the same time period. Participants completed two validated questionnaires; the BREAST-Q reconstruction LD domains and the Western Ontario Shoulder Osteoarthritis Index (WOOS).
resultsA total of 135 cases (75 per cent) and 118 controls (60 per cent) responded to the questionnaires. The mean follow-up time was 7 years. Patients reconstructed with a LD flap were significantly less satisfied with their back and shoulder function when compared to the DIEP controls, as measured with BREAST-Q and WOOS. Predictors for a poor patient-reported back and shoulder function included axillary surgery and axillary radiotherapy, especially when combined, as well as higher age at reconstruction.
conclusionPatients who have undergone LD flap for delayed breast reconstruction had a lower satisfaction with back and shoulder function, when compared to patients who had undergone a DIEP reconstruction. Delayed LD reconstruction should be used with care, especially in patients who have undergone axillary surgery and axillary radiotherapy.
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.