ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Reconstructing Failure: Assessing Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Loss of Initial Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Factors Affecting Implant Salvage in Patients with Complications After Post-Mastectomy Implant-Based Reconstruction.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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast reconstruction failure, defined as the removal of a prosthetic device or flap without immediate replacement, can be traumatic. The authors describe the progression of tissue expander (TE), implant, or autologous breast reconstructive failure, and assess the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients who undergo additional reconstruction.
methodPatients undergoing TE, implant, or autologous breast reconstruction between 2017 and 2022 were included, and patients with reconstructive failures were identified. Outcomes of interests included receipt of additional reconstruction and BREAST-Q scores 1 year after reconstructive failure. The authors also performed a propensity-matched analysis between patients who underwent secondary reconstruction and patients who had an uncomplicated reconstruction.
resultsA total of 4258 patients receiving TEs, 4420 patients receiving implants, and 1545 patients receiving autologous breast reconstruction were included. Of patients who experienced reconstructive failures, 49.5% of patients with TEs, 4.8% of patients with implants, and 53.8% of patients with autologous reconstruction underwent secondary reconstruction. Age, psychiatric diagnosis, chemotherapy, radiation, and mastectomy type were associated with increased likelihood of secondary reconstruction. Between patients with and without additional reconstruction, higher Psychosocial Well-being trended toward the former cohort (61 [interquartile range, 56, 80] versus 50 [46, 65]; P = 0.085). Propensity-matched analysis demonstrated comparable PROs at 1 year after definite reconstruction.
conclusionsFewer than half of patients with reconstructive failure undergo an additional reconstruction. Patients who receive secondary reconstruction may have greater Psychosocial Well-being scores than those who do not and comparable PROs to those who had uncomplicated initial reconstruction. Surgeons should counsel patients with reconstructive failures that secondary reconstruction, although traumatizing, may be beneficial. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
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.