Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38438762›Full record

SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024

The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

Yang Hu, Wuliang Diao, Shiyi Wen, Julius K S K Kpegah, Zhenyang Xiao, Xuan Zhou, Jianda Zhou, Ping Li

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yang HuDepartment of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Wuliang DiaoDepartment of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Shiyi WenDepartment of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Julius K S K KpegahDepartment of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Zhenyang XiaoDepartment of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China.
Xuan ZhouCenter for Medical Research, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jianda ZhouDepartment of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China. zhoujianda@csu.edu.cn.
Ping LiDepartment of Plastic Surgery of Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China. 993850347@qq.com.
Third Xiangya Hospital · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery is emerging as the primary surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, mesh use remains controversial in implant breast reconstruction surgery, especially in terms of how to select the ideal mesh. Our aim is to elaborate relevant prognosis in the mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery.

methodsRelevant studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library searches. Extracted data included study type, basic characteristics, mesh information, complications, etc. We analyzed the included cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that reported mesh-related implant breast reconstruction complications and breast quality scale scores.

resultsA total of 32 studies including 7475 subjects were included. The results showed that the overall complication rate was 2.07 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (risk ratio [RR]: 2.07, 95% CI 1.14-3.78). The risk of seroma was 4.50 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (RR: 4.50, 95% CI 2.27-8.95). In terms of comparing breast quality scale scores, the mesh group had scores that were 1.49 (95% CI 0.19-2.78) higher than the non-mesh group for "physical well-being" and 2.05 (95% CI 0.08-4.02) higher for "sexual well-being."

conclusionsOur study found that the risk of total complications was higher with biological mesh than with synthetic mesh in implant breast reconstruction surgery. Based on short-term cost, healthcare burden, and healthcare benefits, synthetic meshes are superior to biological meshes. 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 ImplantsPostoperative ComplicationsSurgical MeshBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMastectomyPrognosisRisk AssessmentBiological meshesComplicationsImplant-based breast reconstruction surgerySynthetic meshes

Identifiers

PMID38438762
OpenAlexW4392384252

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.