ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2024
Analyzing mastectomy and reconstruction weight in immediate autologous breast reconstruction: A preliminary study.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to explore the ideal breast size by assessing the relationship between mastectomy to free flap weight ratio and complications as well as patient-reported outcomes in autologous breast reconstruction (ABR).
methodA retrospective review of patients undergoing bilateral immediate ABR with mastectomy and flap weights available was completed. Patients were divided into three groups based on the ratio of mastectomy to flap weights. The patients were grouped as "maintained" if the flap weight was within 10% of the mastectomy weight. Patients with a weight difference greater than 10% were used to declare "downsized" or "upsized." Outcomes included complications and four domains of the BREAST-Q at 1-year postoperatively.
resultsThree hundred and fifty-nine patients were included in the analysis, of which 112 were downsized, 91 maintained, and 156 upsized, respectively. Presence of complications did not significantly differ among the groups. At 1-year postoperatively, Sexual Well-being significantly differed (p = 0.033). Between preoperative and 1 year, patients who upsized experienced an improvement in Satisfaction with Breasts by 16 points (p < 0.001), while patients who downsized experienced a decline in Physical Well-being of the Chest by 7 points (p = 0.016). Multivariable linear regression model showed that Sexual Well-being was 13 points lower in the downsized cohort than in the maintained cohort (β = -13, 95% confidence interval: -21 to -5.4; p = 0.001).
conclusionAlthough complication rates do not significantly differ between the three cohorts, patients who downsize may have lower Sexual Well-being postoperatively. Surgeons should consider our preliminary findings to counsel patients preoperatively about the predicted breast size and the impact of downsizing on sexual health.
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.