ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2024
Choosing breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy and subpectoral implant breast reconstruction: implications for pectoralis major function.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of Breast Cancer Surgery on Upper-Limb Muscle Activation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn increasing number of women are choosing mastectomy and subpectoral implant (SI) breast reconstruction over breast-conserving therapy (BCT). It is unclear to what extent these procedures differ in their effect on the pectoralis major (PM). The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of choosing BCT or SI breast reconstruction on PM function.
methodsUltrasound shear wave elastography images were acquired from the PM fiber regions and surface electromyography obtained activity from six shoulder muscles, while 14 BCT participants, 14 SI participants, and 14 age-matched controls remained at rest or generated submaximal shoulder torques.
resultsBCT and SI participants were significantly weaker in shoulder adduction, while BCT participants were also weaker in internal and external rotation (all p ≤ 0.003). PM function was altered following either BCT or SI. In all treatment groups, the clavicular fiber region contributed primarily to flexion, and the sternocostal primarily contributed to adduction. However, healthy participants utilized the clavicular region more during adduction and the sternocostal region more during flexion when compared to BCT or SI participants (all p ≤ 0.049). The still intact clavicular region increased its contributions to flexion torques in SI participants compared to controls (p = 0.016). Finally, BCT and SI participants compensated for changes in PM function using synergistic shoulder musculature.
conclusionBoth BCT and SI breast reconstruction result in significant long-term upper extremity strength deficits. Our results suggest changes to the underlying function of the PM and the adoption of unique but inadequate neuromuscular compensation strategies drive these deficits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38851662What 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.