Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38216789›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024

Single versus Double Drainage for Immediate Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Joseph M Escandón, Alejandra Aristizábal, Howard N Langstein, Jose G Christiano, Jessica C Gooch, Peter A Prieto, Kristin A Skinner, Anna Weiss, Oscar J Manrique

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Joseph M EscandónDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8982-1950
Alejandra AristizábalDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Howard N LangsteinDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Jose G ChristianoDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Jessica C GoochDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Peter A PrietoDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Kristin A SkinnerDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Anna WeissDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Oscar J ManriqueDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA. oscarj.manrique@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReports evaluating plastic surgeons' practices indicate there are conflicting trends regarding the use of one or two drains for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Our study aimed to perform a matched cohort analysis to examine the postoperative outcomes and complications of immediate IBBR with tissue expander (TE) using two drains versus a single drain.

methodsA propensity score-matched analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching) of immediate reconstructions using two versus one drain was conducted. Female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs between January 2011 and May 2021 were included. The covariables were as follows: BMI, mastectomy weight, lymph node surgery, TE surface, plane of reconstruction, use of acellular dermal matrix products, fluorescence imaging use, and intraoperative TE volume.

resultsAfter matching using propensity scores, 192 reconstructions were included in the final analysis: 96 in each group. The rate of 30-day complications and overall complications during the first phase of IBBR were comparable between groups. The time for drain removal, time to initiate and finalize expansions, and time for TE-to-implant exchange were comparable between groups. Diabetes (OR 3.74, p = 0.025) and an increased estimated blood loss (OR 1.004, p = 0.01) were the only independent predictors for seroma formation.

conclusionIn this matched cohort analysis evaluating the role of one versus two drains for two-stage IBBR, we found a comparable rate of complications and surgical outcomes between the two cohorts. Using two drains for immediate IBBR needs to be tailored depending on intraoperative findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Breast ImplantationBreast ImplantsDrainagePropensity ScoreAdultBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEstheticsFemaleHumansMammaplastyMastectomyMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsBreast implantation [mesh]Female [mesh]Postoperative complications [mesh]Tissue expansion devices [mesh]Treatment outcome [mesh]

Identifiers

PMID38216789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.