Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37910518›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions-Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review.

Christine Bojanic, Bruno Di Pace, Dina T Ghorra, Laura J Fopp, Nicholas G Rabey, Charles M Malata

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Christine BojanicPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1708-3909
Bruno Di PaceScuola Superiore Meridionale, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5774-8832
Dina T GhorraPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7659-9863
Laura J FoppPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Nicholas G RabeyPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Charles M MalataPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBScuola Superiore Meridionale · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSalvage breast reconstruction with autologous tissue is becoming more prevalent due to a resurgence in implant-based procedures. The latter has caused a commensurate rise in failed or treatment-resistant prosthetic cases requiring conversion to free tissue transfers. Salvage reconstruction is often considered more challenging, owing to patient presentation, prior treatments and intraoperative difficulties. The aim of the study was to test this hypothesis by comparing outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage autologous microsurgical breast reconstructions in a retrospective matched cohort study.

methodsThe demographics, risk factors, operative details and outcomes of patients who underwent free flap salvage of implant-based reconstructions by a single operator (2005-2019) were retrospectively evaluated. For each salvage reconstruction, the consecutive non-salvage abdominal free flap reconstruction was selected for comparison. The clinical outcomes including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, flap survival and complication rates were compared.

resultsOf 442 microsurgical patients, 35 (8.0%) had salvage reconstruction comprising 41 flap transfers (29 unilateral, 6 bilateral) and 42 flaps (28 unilateral, 7 bilateral) in nonsalvage reconstruction. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps comprised the commonest autologous tissue used in both groups at 74% and 71% respectively. Most patients (83%) underwent salvage reconstruction for severe capsular contractures. There was a significant difference in radiation exposure between groups (salvage reconstruction 89%, non-salvage reconstruction 26%; p<0.00001). All 83 flaps were successful with similar reoperation rates and intraoperative blood losses. Unilateral salvage reconstruction took on average two hours longer than non-salvage reconstruction (p = 0.008). Overall complication rates were similar (p>0.05).

conclusionThis 15-year study shows that despite salvage autologous free flap breast reconstruction requiring longer operation times, its intra and postoperative outcomes are generally comparable to non-salvage cases. Therefore, salvage breast reconstruction with free flaps provides a reliable option for failed or suboptimal implant-based reconstructions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFree Tissue FlapsMammaplastyPerforator FlapCohort StudiesFemaleHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTertiary Care Centers

Identifiers

PMID37910518
PMCPMC10619878
OpenAlexW4388126145

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.