ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2024
Mastectomy Skin Flap Perfusion Assessment Prior to Breast Reconstruction: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of different implant-based breast reconstruction strategies: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Predictors of Complications in Prophylactic Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective, Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The Role of Indocyanine Green Angiography and Axillary Reverse Mapping in Breast Reconstruction Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
backgroundPredicting the viability of the skin flaps after mastectomy is of high importance and significance in immediate breast reconstruction. Numerous methods have been used and are readily available. This review aims to describe and compare the current preferred perfusion assessment tools.
methodsFour major scientific databases-Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus-were consulted to retrieve reviews, meta-analyses, clinical trials, experimental studies, and case reports focused on skin flap perfusion assessment following mastectomy. English-language articles published within the last 10 years were included. The most recent search was conducted on 31 July 2024.
resultsA summary focused on the relevant information of all included studies was drafted, and the results of the studies have been synthetized and compared. A total of 58 studies have been included in this review.
conclusionIndocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) is the preferred and most-used method of evaluating perfusion, especially in high-risk patients, while new technologies show promising results and might be of great interest in the future. Perfusion assessment tools complement and should not replace clinical evaluation.
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.