Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38306013›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2024

Patient-reported outcomes of mesh in minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) immediate subpectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a retrospective study.

Xin Wu, Yu Gui, Jing Liu, Shichao Li, Xi Yang, Zhen Zeng, Yi Zhang, Linjun Fan, Jun Jiang, Li Chen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xin Wu *Breast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Yu GuiBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Jing Liu *Breast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Shichao LiBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Xi YangBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Zhen ZengBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Yi ZhangBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Linjun FanBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Jun JiangBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China.
Li ChenBreast Disease Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Gaotanyan Main Street 30, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China. lichen20021522@163.com.
Chongqing Medical University · CNArmy Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough there is increasing interest in minimally invasive prosthesis breast reconstruction (PBR), whether meshes application in minimally invasive PBR can improve complications and cosmetic effects remains controversial. The author retrospectively analyzed postoperative complications and evaluated patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in minimally invasive PBR with and without mesh.

methodsThis study enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) followed by PBR. We used the TiLOOP bra for the mesh-assisted procedure. Patient demographics and postoperative complications data were compared between the procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Breast-Q.

resultsA total of 158 patients underwent 160 minimally invasive NSM-PBR (with mesh, n = 64; without, n = 94). Postoperative complications were comparable in the mesh-assisted (5 [7.7%]) and non-mesh-assisted (5 [5.3%]) groups (p = 0.533). The most common complication in non-mesh-assisted group was infection, with four (4.2%) cases. In mesh-assisted group, implant exposure occurred in two (3.1%) patients. Removal of prosthesis was uncommon, with two (3.1%) and three (3.2%) cases in the mesh-assisted and non-mesh groups, respectively (p = 0.977). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was completed by 52 (81.3%) patients in the mesh-assisted group and 68 (72.3%) in the non-mesh-assisted group. Comparing the non-mesh group, patients in mesh-assisted group had improved scores on the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with breast (66.0) (p < 0.05), Physical Well-being (80.0), and Sexual Well-being (56.0).

conclusionsMesh-assisted minimally invasive NSM-PBR has good aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the mesh-assisted and non-mesh-assisted groups.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMammaplastyRoboticsFemaleHumansMastectomyNipplesPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshBreast-QBreast reconstructionMeshMinimally invasive NSMPatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID38306013
OpenAlexW4391480624

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.