ReviewGland surgery2024
Current status of pre- and retropectoral breast reconstructions worldwide: a narrative review.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of different implant-based breast reconstruction strategies: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: Early and Long-Term Complications and Outcomes of Total Coverage Acellular Dermal Matrix and Implants Vs Polyurethane-Coated Implants Without Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
- Impact of Surgical Delay on Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Minimal access nipple-sparing mastectomy - the current European landscape.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2025Review
- Repeated Autologous Fat Grafting Significantly Increases Mastectomy Flap Thickness in Pre-Pectoral Multi-Stage Composite Expander-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Exploring the Concept of a Reverse Expansion.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.