Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39228420›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024

Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Salvage with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation: An Evaluation of Outcomes.

Shahnur Ahmed, Luci Hulsman, Folasade Imeokparia, Kandice Ludwig, Carla Fisher, Ravinder Bamba, Rachel Danforth, R Jason VonDerHaar, Mary E Lester, Aladdin H Hassanein

Abstract read
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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

10 authors.

Shahnur AhmedFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Luci HulsmanFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Folasade ImeokpariaDivision of Breast Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Kandice LudwigDivision of Breast Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Carla FisherDivision of Breast Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Ravinder BambaFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Rachel DanforthFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
R Jason VonDerHaarFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Mary E LesterFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.
Aladdin H HassaneinFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Implant infection is problematic in breast reconstruction. Traditionally, infected tissue expanders (TE)/implants are removed for several months before replacement, resulting in breast reconstruction delay. Salvage involving device removal, negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell (NPWTi-d) placement, and early staged TE/implant replacement within a few days has been described. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of the NPWTi-d salvage pathway with traditional implant removal. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction and developed TE/implant infection/exposure requiring removal. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 had TE/implant removal, NPWTi-d placement, and TE/implant replacement 1-4 days later. Group 2 (control) underwent standard TE/implant removal and no NPWTi-d. Reinfection after TE/implant salvage, TE/implant-free days, and time to final reconstruction were assessed. Results: The study included 47 patients (76 TE/implants) in group 1 (13 patients, 16 TE/implants) and group 2 (34 patients, 60 TE/implants). The success rate (no surgical-site infection within 90 days) of implant salvage was 81.3% in group 1. No group 1 patients abandoned completing reconstruction after TE/implant loss versus 38.2% (13 of 34) in group 2 ( Conclusions: A breast implant salvage pathway with infected device removal, NPWTi-d placement, and early TE/implant replacement was successful in 81.3%. Patients experienced 132 less implant-free days and faster time to final reconstruction.

Identifiers

PMID39228420
PMCPMC11368219

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.