ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
A Meta-analysis Comparing Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flaps and Latissimus Dorsi Flaps in Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and optimal timing of staged nipple-sparing mastectomy following nipple repositioning in ptotic breasts: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- AlloDerm Versus Cortiva: A Multicenter Pooled Analysis of Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Article
- Neurotized Dual-pedicle Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap With Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer for Unilateral Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Comparative safety and efficacy of SMAS rhytidectomy techniques: a network meta-analysis protocol.International journal of surgery protocols · 2025Article
- Bleeding, Drains, and Reoperation in Transmasculine Chest Surgery: What 2,534 Patients Tell Us About Tranexamic Acid.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- AlloDerm® versus Cortiva® in implant-based breast reconstruction: framework for a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and economic outcomes.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Primary Nipple-Repositioning Surgery Before Nipple-sparing Mastectomy in Large or Ptotic Breasts: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction in Patients With or Without Previous Abdominal Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- AlloDerm Vs DermACELL in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of All Head-to-Head Comparisons.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps are two widely used breast reconstruction techniques, each with distinct advantages and limitations. This meta-analysis aims to compare patient satisfaction and incidence of complications between these two techniques to inform clinical decision-making. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. We included studies with data comparing DIEP and LD flaps, BREAST-Q patient satisfaction, and complications. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4. Results: The search yielded 788 studies, of which 13 were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 2128 patients were analyzed, with 1378 undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction and 750 receiving LD flap reconstruction. The analysis showed greater improvement with DIEP flaps in breast satisfaction [mean difference (MD) = 9.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.90-12.05, Conclusions: DIEP flap reconstruction offers superior patient satisfaction compared with LD flap reconstruction, despite a higher incidence of certain complications.
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.