ArticleThe British journal of surgery2024
Timing and type of breast reconstruction in SweBRO 3: long-term outcomes.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparing Latissimus Dorsi Flap to Implant in Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Do multidisciplinary ERAS protocols improve flap reconstruction outcomes? A structured review of efficacy, implementation challenges, and specialty-driven adaptations.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- The Role of Indocyanine Green Angiography and Axillary Reverse Mapping in Breast Reconstruction Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction between smooth, textured, and polyurethane-covered implants: results from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.The British journal of surgery · 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 after mastectomy helps women with breast cancer feel better about their bodies and lives. There is debate about the best time and type of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed, and using own tissue versus implants). Long-term studies are rare.
aimThis study looked at long-term results of different breast reconstruction methods and timings in Swedish women who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. It focused on how satisfied the women were with their surgeries and their quality of life.
methodThe study included 5853 women from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Registry who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. Of these, 2904 women answered the survey, and 895 had breast reconstruction. Satisfaction and quality of life were measured using two surveys: EORTC QLQ-BRECON23 and BREAST-Q.
resultsOf the women who answered the survey, 895 (31%) had breast reconstruction. Of these, 176 (20%) had immediate reconstruction, and 719 (80%) had delayed reconstruction; 58% had implant-based reconstructions, 31% had reconstructions using their own tissue, 2% had both types and 9% did not report the type of reconstruction. There were no major differences in satisfaction between immediate and delayed reconstruction. Women who used their own tissue were more satisfied with their results and breast appearance than those with implants.
conclusionAutologous reconstruction leads to better satisfaction and outcomes than implants. The timing of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed) was less of an influence on quality of life.
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.