Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39282046›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2024

Current status of prepectoral breast reconstruction in Argentina.

Alberto Rancati, Claudio Angrigiani, Gonzalo Lamas, Agustin Rancati, Valeria Berrino, Karen Barbosa, Julio Dorr, Marcelo Irigo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Alberto RancatiOncoplastic Program, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2793-4164
Claudio AngrigianiOncoplastic Program, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4333-7311
Gonzalo LamasOncoplastic Program, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4296-3860
Agustin RancatiOncoplastic Program, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3506-8120
Valeria BerrinoOncoplastic Program, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3671-3438
Karen BarbosaOncoplastic Program, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4998-3033
Julio DorrOncoplastic Program, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4333-7311
Marcelo IrigoOncoplastic Program, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martin, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0086-8303

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is among the most common cancers diagnosed in women, affecting one in eight women per year. Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction has emerged as the predominant approach for postmastectomy reconstruction, with a growing preference for the direct-to-implant (DTI) method over the traditional tissue expander technique. While conventionally, implants were typically positioned beneath the pectoralis major muscle, recent advancements have paved the way for implant placement above the muscle, in the prepectoral plane. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) techniques can be combined with prepectoral breast reconstruction. The presence of sufficient fatty tissue coverage is considered one of the foremost independent factors influencing the success of immediate breast reconstruction and flap viability. DTI is a safe approach for prepectoral implant-based reconstruction with a number of advantages. However, careful patient selection and judicious assessment of flap perfusion help identify an appropriate subset of patients for prepectoral DTI reconstruction. Proposed breast tissue coverage classification (BTCC) and rigorous perfusion assessment techniques will aid to minimize postoperative complications and reconstruction failure. Based on the obtained range of coverage values (distance between the Cooper's ligaments and the skin) of preoperative digital mammogram evaluation, a three-type BTCC is as follows: Type 1: <1 cm (poor coverage), Type 2: between 1 and 2 cm (medium coverage), Type 3: >2 cm (good coverage). Prepectoral DTI reconstruction provides good results with complication rates similar to those of subpectoral techniques, eliminating breast animation. A meticulous surgical technique is essential to preserve the vascular network that guarantees the survival of the skin flap and nipple-areola complex (NAC). In the good coverage group (Type 3), an immediate DTI reconstruction could be safely performed. Aesthetic complications as rippling can occur if prepectoral implants are placed in Type 1 patients. Preoperative planning for prepectoral placement should not depend on breast volume, but on breast tissue coverage. Flap evaluation based on preoperative imaging measurements may be helpful when planning a conservative mastectomy. Patient selection, preoperative and intraoperative mastectomy flap evaluation, and modifications in implant technology play a critical role in this new and rapidly growing method for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Indexed as

breast implantationMastectomyplastic surgery procedures

Identifiers

PMID39282046
PMCPMC11398997

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.