ReviewJPRAS open2024
Clinical outcomes of breast reconstruction using omental flaps: A systematic review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopically Harvested Pedicled Omental Flap in Immediate Unilateral Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Pooled it
- Perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted versus traditional surgery for DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Surgical relevance of a pedicled omental flap for the treatment of a recurrent giant mycotic left ventricular pseudoaneurysm: a case report and review of the literature.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and breast reconstruction improves the patient's quality of life. Autologous breast reconstruction provides benefits of natural appearance, feel, and long-term results without implant-associated problems. However, thin patients are not always suitable for standard autologous reconstructions. In these patients, an omental flap could be a useful alternative. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of the literature regarding the clinical outcomes of omental flaps in breast reconstruction. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Medline and Embase databases up to November 1, 2023. Study outcomes were type of flap, tissue transfer, cosmetic outcomes, and short- and long-term complications. Results: Eleven studies covering 985 reconstructions in 969 patients were included. The omentum was mostly laparoscopically harvested (88.6%) and a pedicled reconstruction was mostly performed (91.2%). The most commonly reported short-term complications were wound infections at the donor site (5.8%), partial flap necrosis, and fat necrosis. In the long term, epigastric, umbilical and tunnel hernias, and epigastric bulging were observed. Satisfactory cosmetic results were reported by the patients (88.7%) and professionals (80.0%). Conclusion: Breast reconstruction using an omental flap can be performed in unilateral reconstructions with acceptable donor-site morbidity if laparoscopically harvested. In general, satisfactory cosmetic outcomes were reported and it appears to be a suitable alternative for selected patients who prefer autologous, unilateral breast reconstruction. Further research is necessary to determine the ideal candidates for this reconstruction and the long-term effects of an omentectomy in young patients.
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.