Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39398272›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2024

Anterior intercostal artery flap for implant salvation procedure in aesthetic breast surgery. Case report.

I Miguel-Escuredo, L M Cabañas-Weisz

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

I Miguel-EscuredoCirugía Plástica Bilbao, Gran Vía Don Diego López de Haro, 53, 1Dcha, 48011 Bilbao, Spain.
L M Cabañas-WeiszCirugía Plástica Bilbao, Gran Vía Don Diego López de Haro, 53, 1Dcha, 48011 Bilbao, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implant exposure (IE) is a rare but devastating complication of aesthetic surgery owing to its psychological and economic implications for patients. In cases of IE, the most reliable strategy is implant removal; however, most patients do not prefer this option. In the absence of prosthetic contamination, salvage procedures are a viable option, with promising success rates. Once IE is detected, the cutaneous defect cannot be treated with direct closure. If additional tissue is needed, the anterior intercostal artery perforator (AICAP) flap can be harvested, using the inframammary fold as a donor site, with minimal aesthetic implications. AICAP flaps can cover defects over the entire lower mammary pole and are useful as deep reinforcement for breast-slimmed flaps. We report a case of augmentation mastopexy in a patient with grade I tuberous breasts. The undeveloped lower mammary pole led to delayed IE at 33 days after surgery. No signs of contamination were observed, and the cutaneous defect was covered with an AICAP flap. Antibiotic instillation was established for 24 h, and oral antibiotic therapy was administered for 3 weeks. Seven months later, a dog-ear deformity of the lateral inframammary fold and excess skin on the flap were excised, resulting in a good aesthetic outcome.

Indexed as

Breast augmentationImplant exposureImplant salvageIntercostal artery flapMastopexy

Identifiers

PMID39398272
PMCPMC11470568

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.