ArticleCancers2024
Postoperative Outcomes of Pre-Pectoral Versus Sub-Pectoral Implant Immediate Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Guideline
- Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Short-term Outcomes of Polydioxanone Synthetic Mesh in 2-stage Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Center Comparative Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of prepectoral and subpectoral standalone placement of MicrothaneJPRAS open · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the Implementation of a Bundle Protocol for the Reduction of Postmastectomy Reconstruction Failures.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Abemacilib-Related Radiation Recall Dermatitis Post Breast Reconstruction: A Case Report and Literature Review.Thoracic cancer · 2026Review
- Cumulative Medical Costs of Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Article
- Are thin flaps still a contraindication? Early outcomes of prepectoral DTI reconstruction in a large single-center cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- A Brand-New Drainage Fluid Predictor, ICAM-1 for Implant Loss After the Immediate Reconstruction of Breast.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Article
- Article
- Current Practices and Evolving Trends in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in China: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImmediate breast reconstruction (IBR) techniques are rapidly evolving. We compared the results from a single-center implant IBR cohort between subpectoral and prepectoral implants with and without a mesh.
methodsWe analyzed all complications and grade 2-3 complications, the implant loss rate, the surgery time, the length of stay (LOS), patient satisfaction, the interval time to adjuvant therapy and cost, with a comparison between subpectoral and prepectoral implant IBR.
resultsSubpectoral implant IBR was carried out in 529 mastectomies (62.0%) and prepectoral in 324, with a significant increase in prepectoral placement in recent years. Mesh was used in 176 prepectoral placements (54.3%). Any grade of complication was reported in 147 mastectomies (17.2%), with a significantly higher rate for prepectoral implant IBR (
conclusionsPrepectoral-M-IBR increased over time with no difference in complication rates compared to subpectoral-M-IBR. Prepectoral implant placement can be considered a safe technique.
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.