ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2024
Complex chest wall reconstruction after failure: a literature review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An integrated digital-to-surgical framework for patient-specific chest wall resection and reconstruction using 3D-printed titanium implants: proof-of-concept study.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Article
- Current treatment strategies and prospects for chest wall defect repair and reconstruction.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Primary and secondary chest wall tumors (bone, breast, and soft tissue), congenital defects, and chest wall osteoradionecrosis often require extensive full-thickness local excisions to guarantee safe oncological margins (in cases of tumors) and complex reconstruction to provide stabilization and good biomechanical results avoiding postoperative respiratory failure. Thus, a personalized approach is required when dealing with chest wall defects, and reconstruction is planned. This review summarizes failed chest wall reconstruction procedures, identifies causes of failure, and highlights principles for complex chest wall reconstruction post-failure. Methods: We performed a narrative review of the literature on PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, including all the relevant studies published from 1970. Key Content and Findings: The available experiences in literature are only anecdotic and no current guidelines or rules exist on this topic, also given to its rarity. Proper pre-surgical planning and a multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion are crucial for complex cases such as infections and radiation-induced chest ulcers after previous surgical treatment. Procedures should eventually include thoracic wall debridement, necrotic tissue excision, pulse-jet lavage, prosthesis removal, and vacuum assisted closure (VAC) therapy as a bridge for chest wall re-reconstruction. Sternotomy wounds require wire and prosthesis removal, and the use of meshes or bone allografts. This review aims to summarize experiences and highlight surgical and oncologic principles for complex chest wall reconstruction after failure. Conclusions: This review summarizes literature experiences to identify common key points for chest wall reconstruction after failure and to give some advice to surgeons managing this rare, challenging surgery.
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.