ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Satisfaction with Breasts following Autologous Reconstruction: Assessing Associated Factors and the Impact of Revisions.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Time and Place on BREAST-Q REACT: A Multi-Institutional Examination.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Assessing Patient Priorities and Satisfaction Regarding Aesthetic Outcomes Following Autologous Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Persistent Postmastectomy Pain: A Comparison of Diagnosis and Patient-reported Outcome Measures in 6988 Patients.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Article
- Microsurgical Strategies in Post-Radiation and Revision Breast Reconstruction: Optimizing Outcomes in High-Risk Patients.Cancers · 2025Review
- A Novel Fat-Augmented Omentum-Based Construct Is a Cost-Effective Alternative for Autologous Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutologous breast reconstruction (ABR) may confer higher patient-reported outcomes than implant breast reconstruction, but an in-depth examination of factors associated with satisfaction after ABR is lacking. The authors aimed to determine independent predictors of 1-year satisfaction with breasts after ABR and assess the importance of elective procedures on satisfaction.
methodsA retrospective analysis of patients who underwent abdominally based ABR between 2010 and 2021 and completed the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breasts module at 1 year was performed. Elective procedures consisted of breast revision and nipple-areola complex reconstruction.
resultsA total of 959 patients were included. Satisfaction with Breasts score improved from 53 (interquartile range [IQR], 44 to 64) preoperatively to 64 (IQR, 53 to 78) at 1 year postoperatively ( P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with decreased postoperative score included lower preoperative scores (β = 0.19 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.31]; P = 0.001), older age (β = -0.17 [95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01]; P = 0.042), Asian race (versus White, β = -6.7 [95% CI, -12 to -1.7]; P = 0.008), and a history of psychiatric diagnoses (β = -3.4 [95% CI, -6.2 to -0.66]; P = 0.015). Patients who received radiation therapy (β = -5.6 [95% CI, -9.0 to -2.3]; P = 0.001) or had mastectomy skin flap/nipple necrosis (β = -3.8 [95% CI, -7.6 to -0.06]; P = 0.046) also had significantly decreased scores. Satisfaction with Breasts scores improved significantly after breast revision procedures (from 54 [IQR, 42 to 65] to 65 [IQR, 54 to 78]; P < 0.001), and nipple-areola complex reconstruction (from 58 [IQR, 47 to 71] to 67 [IQR, 57 to 82]; P < 0.001).
conclusionsMultiple independent patient and treatment level factors are associated with lower 1-year Satisfaction with Breasts scores following ABR. Elective procedures have the potential to improve satisfaction. Understanding these findings is imperative for optimizing clinical decision-making and managing expectations. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
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.