ArticleGland surgery2024
Breast cancer patients' postoperative outcomes in nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement: a single center experience.
Article in Gland surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative analysis of robotic- and endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis with subgroup analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Ultrasound-assisted periareolar oncoplastic approach in breast surgery: a focus on surgical technique.Frontiers in surgery · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The continuous increase in the rate of nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM), the development of several reconstructive techniques and the following introduction of acellular derma matrix (ADM) has revolutionized implant-based breast reconstruction. This study aimed to investigate postoperative complications, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patients' satisfaction in patients undergoing NSM and breast reconstruction with or without ADM. Methods: Enrolled patients were divided into three groups: immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with definitive implant and ADM (Group A), IBR only with definitive prosthesis (Group B), and two-stage breast reconstruction (Group C). The postoperative complications, BREAST-Q outcomes and reoperations were compared. Results: A total of 105 BC patients were enrolled and a total of 139 post-mastectomy breast reconstructions were performed. Seroma was the most prevalent complication observed: 8.3% in Group A, 2.9% in Group B and 5.7% in Group C. Postoperative infection occurred in two patients of Group A (5.6%), one patient of Group B (2.9%) and one of Group C (2.9%). Group A reported larger drain volume (1,125±243.5 cc), longer drain period (13.2±2.8 days), and the lowest incidence of capsular contracture (5.6%). The BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measures document that all patients aged ≥50 years presented a higher score in "Satisfaction with breast" (P<0.001) and "Satisfaction with outcome" domains (P<0.05). Performing a bilateral breast reconstruction was associated to higher scores in "Physical wellbeing chest domain" (P<0.05). In addition, patients in Group A and Group B reported higher score in "Satisfaction with the breast" domain (P<0.001) but only in Group B we reported a higher score in "Satisfaction with outcome" (P<0.001). Conclusions: Subpectoral IBR results in manageable complications and greater personal satisfaction. The ADM could improve breast reconstruction reducing the rate of capsular contracture. The prepectoral placement of ADM could minimize complications and optimize aesthetic results.
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.