ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Outcomes of ADM-Assisted Implant-based Breast Reconstructions According to Division Types of the Pectoralis Major Muscle.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Do Native Breasts Move During Pectoralis Major Contraction in Unoperated Women? A Quantitative 3D Analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR), several surgical techniques are based on the implant insertion planes. Ideal location for breast implants has become a popular topic in IBRs because each technique has advantages and disadvantages. Herein, we report the outcomes of three different division types of the pectoralis muscle and suggest an algorithm for selecting the division types.
methodsCharts of patients who underwent IBRs between October 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were classified into three groups (prepectoral, high subpectoral, and subpectoral) according to the division types of the pectoralis muscle. Aesthetic outcomes were assessed in terms of animation deformity, rippling deformity, and visibility of the upper implant border.
resultsTotal 104 cases were included. 25, 38, and 41 were in the prepectoral, high-subpectoral, subpectoral IBR groups, respectively. Animation deformities frequently appeared in the subpectoral group. Nipple displacement was most prominent in the subpectoral group. Skin rippling at rest was mostly detected in the prepectoral group, whereas ripping during contraction was commonly observed in the subpectoral group. Visibility of upper border was more prominent in the prepectoral group than the other groups.
conclusionsWe propose an algorithm for selecting the division types of the pectoralis muscle. If the pectoralis muscle is thick, prepectoral plane is most preferred to avoid the animation deformity. In cases with thin pectoralis muscle, thickness of the mastectomy flap is considered next. If it is thicker than 1cm, prepectoral plane is better than the subpectoral plane; otherwise, high-subpectoral plane is preferable for better aesthetic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39414649What 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.