Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39175699›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2024

Current status of pre- and retropectoral breast reconstructions worldwide: a narrative review.

Gudjon Leifur Gunnarsson, C Andrew Salzberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

2 authors.

Gudjon Leifur GunnarssonDepartment of Plastic Surgery, SSHF Arendal Hospital Trust, Arendal, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7388-9451
C Andrew SalzbergScully-Welsh Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic, Vero Beach, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Advances in breast cancer research and technology contribute to conservative ablative surgical approach with emphasis on reconstruction. The introduction of biologic membranes in breast surgery facilitates a one-stage implant reconstruction while the importance of the pectoralis major muscle involvement in the procedure becomes debatable. A subsequent increase in prepectoral implant placement procedures seems to close a cycle of innovations in implant-based breast reconstructions. This sparks a debate that calls for a critical review of existing literature considering that new challenges tend to arise along with new perspectives. The authors seek to scope the present status of prepectoral and subpectoral implant reconstruction worldwide, and answer recurring questions, including the novelty of presented innovations in the context of existing literature. Methods: The article is based on a literature search in PubMed with the keywords "prepectoral" or "subpectoral" and "breast reconstruction", in addition to the authors' experience with a large number of patients. Key Content and Findings: Recent studies focus on the comparative safety of prepectoral Conclusions: After reading this paper, the reader should have a firm understanding of the key elements of implant-based breast reconstruction in historical context with emphasis on muscle planes and their pros and cons.

Indexed as

acellular dermal matrix (ADM)biologicsImplant-based breast reconstructionprepectoralretropectoral

Identifiers

PMID39175699
PMCPMC11336793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.