Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38720669›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2024

Sensate immediate breast reconstruction.

Anne Warren Peled, Ziv M Peled

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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

2 authors.

Anne Warren PeledSutter Health California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ziv M PeledPeled Plastic Surgery, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As breast cancer therapies and associated oncologic outcomes continue to improve, greater attention has been placed on quality-of-life issues after breast cancer and breast cancer risk-reducing treatments. The loss of sensation that typically occurs after mastectomy can have significant negative psychological, sexual, and functional impact on patients after surgery. Further, injury of nerves not only leads to numbness, but can also cause chronic neuropathic pain, which can be very debilitating to affected patients. In order to minimize these impacts, there is expanding uptake of surgical approaches that preserve nerves at the time of mastectomy and reconstruct injured nerves either during mastectomy or during delayed reconstruction. These advances have been facilitated by anatomic studies investigating different variants of intercostal anatomy and better understanding the course of the nerves innervating the mastectomy skin and nipple-areolar complex (NAC). With improved knowledge of the intercostal nerve anatomy, surgeons are able to carefully preserve nerves at the time of mastectomy, thus improving sensory outcomes. Additionally, nerve reconstruction techniques have advanced, particularly with newer nerve allograft technologies, which allows for nerve reconstruction to be done both at the time of mastectomy, as well as in a delayed fashion. The focus of this article is to describe the current state of sensory preservation and immediate reinnervation at the time of mastectomy and the advances that have allowed for these new approaches.

Indexed as

breast reconstructionbreast sensationMastectomysensory reinnervation

Identifiers

PMID38720669
PMCPMC11074667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.