ReviewGland surgery2024
Microsurgical breast reconstruction in the United States: a narrative review of the current state.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supermicrosurgical Vascular Anastomosis-A Comparative Study of Lumen-Enhancing Visibility Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing Donor Site Morbidity and Impact on Quality of Life in Free Flap Microsurgery: An Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Breast reconstruction with microsurgical techniques allows for autologous reconstruction after mastectomy without the complications associated with alloplastic reconstruction. Autologous reconstruction has undergone significant improvement and now offers patients a variety of options depending on patient specific factors and aesthetic outcomes. This review aims to focus on the history of autologous reconstruction, operative considerations, general surgical techniques for flaps, and indications for choosing the ideal free tissue transfer for all medical specialties and not only plastic surgeons. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed using PubMed and Embase databases. Manuscripts that provided objective data with respect to history of microsurgical options, surgical techniques, patient considerations, and contraindications were utilized for this review with the objective to simplify data for all non-plastic surgeon readers. Key Content and Findings: In this study, we find that patient selection is critical in successful outcomes for microsurgical breast reconstruction. We find that abdominal free flaps are now considered gold standard for autologous reconstruction. However, reliable alternatives exist for patients who are not considered ideal candidates for this reconstruction. These include thigh-based flaps such as gracilis myocutaneous flaps, profunda artery perforator flaps, lateral thigh perforator flaps and trunk-based flaps such as lumbar artery perforator flap. Postoperative considerations involve clinical monitoring and enhanced recovery after surgery. The rate of reconstructive success and flap viability is greater that 95%, even in high-risk populations, and therefore risk stratification should be performed based on an individual basis. While there are no absolute contraindications to autologous reconstruction, relative contraindications do exist including obesity and elderly populations due to the increased surgical and medical complications. Conclusions: While implant-based reconstruction remains the predominant method of breast reconstruction in the United States, there have been many exciting advancements in autologous reconstruction that offers high aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction.
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.