Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38859804›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024

A Single-center Comparison of Surgical Outcomes following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction.

Karie Villanueva, Harsh Patel, Durga Ghosh, Alexandra Klomhaus, Ginger Slack, Jaco Festekjian, Andrew Da Lio, Charles Tseng

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. [Advances in application of tissue expansion technology in breast reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  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

8 authors.

Karie VillanuevaFrom the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Harsh PatelFrom the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Durga GhoshLos Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif.
Alexandra KlomhausDepartment of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif.
Ginger SlackFrom the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Jaco FestekjianFrom the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Andrew Da LioFrom the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.
Charles TsengFrom the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prepectoral implant placement continues to gain widespread acceptance as a safe and effective option for breast reconstruction. Current literature demonstrates comparable rates of complications and revisions between prepectoral and subpectoral placement; however, these studies are underpowered and lack long-term follow-up. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent immediate two-staged tissue expander or direct-to-implant breast reconstruction at a single center from January 2017 to March 2021. Cases were divided into prepectoral and subpectoral cohorts. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, aesthetic deformities, and secondary revisions. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models were performed to compare the demographic characteristics and outcomes between the two cohorts. Results: We identified 996 breasts (570 patients), which were divided into prepectoral (391 breasts) and subpectoral (605 breasts) cohorts. There was a higher rate of complications ( Conclusions: This study evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction from a single center with long-term follow-up. Prepectoral placement was shown to have an inferior complication and aesthetic profile compared with subpectoral placement, with no difference in secondary revisions. These findings require validation with a well-designed randomized controlled trial to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Identifiers

PMID38859804
PMCPMC11163997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.