ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2023
Chest wall reconstruction, prosthesis and allografts: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- A practical strategy for skeletal chest wall reconstruction after resection of malignant chest wall lesions: a single-institution experience.Surgery today · 2026Article
- An integrated digital-to-surgical framework for patient-specific chest wall resection and reconstruction using 3D-printed titanium implants: proof-of-concept study.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Article
- Recipient vessel selection for microvascular chest wall reconstruction: A narrative review and decision support framework.JPRAS open · 2026Review
- Patient‑specific 3D‑printed Ti‑6Al‑4 V sternum-rib implant for near‑total sternal resection: operational blueprint, implant design principles, and intermediate clinical outcome.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- 3D printing-guided chest wall reconstruction - a case report and literature review.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Narrative review: a multidisciplinary approach to chest wall reconstruction.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Diaphragm resuspension to titanium neo-ribs: A technique for chest-wall reconstruction involving the costal margin.JTCVS techniques · 2025Article
- Full-Thickness Chest Wall Resection and Reconstruction for Locally Invasive Phyllodes Tumors: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- The "Spider Web" Technique in Difficult Chest Wall Reconstructions: A 5-Year Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- En-bloc resection of large anterior chest wall chondrosarcoma with myocutaneous flap closure.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Application of composite layered repair system using titanium mesh, bone cement and vacuum sealing drainage for chest wall defect.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Chondrosarcoma of the Sternum: Surgical Challenges, Chest Wall Reconstruction, and Postoperative Management.Cureus · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: What is the best material in the case of prosthesis used to replace major chest wall resection is still unknown. We reviewed most significant literature focused on the type of prosthetic materials available by highlighting their relative pros and cons. Methods: We reviewed most significant articles, including clinical results of relevant case series (retrospective studies), published in English in the last 23 years: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were used in our search in the period between the 1 Key Content and Findings: Overall, our literature review revealed lack of uniformity or conformity in the surgical strategies described for chest wall reconstruction with no internationally accepted standard in terms of decisions and optimal prosthetic materials and type of prostheses (soft, rigid, biological). Despite the increased interest in chest wall reconstruction, we observed a general lack of substantial prospective and multicentric studies. Likewise, there are not substantial data which may guide to the choice of optimal prosthetics in terms of characteristics and biocompatibility. Conclusions: A variety of materials are available for reconstruction, including synthetic and biological meshes, flexible and rigid patches, and metal osteosynthesis systems. The material chosen should be optimized to each patient and damaged tissues to be restored. Prospective and multicentric studies are necessary to address current limits in this surgical field.
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.