ArticleJPRAS open2024
Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction in Irradiated Patients: A 12-year follow-up of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator and Latissimus Dorsi Flap Outcomes.
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 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.
- Article
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
The aim of the current study was to conduct a 12-year follow-up on the authors´ previously evaluated group of irradiated patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and latissimus dorsi (LD)-flaps with implant. The follow-up involved 67% of the patients from the original cohort (17 DIEP and 13 LD). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) were measured using the BREAST-Q, SF-36, a satisfaction form, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires. Aesthetics were evaluated by a board of independent plastic surgeons. The average follow-up time was 12.6 years (DIEP) and 11.8 years (LD). Contralateral symmetry procedures were performed on 15 DIEP and 9 LD patients. Both groups underwent an average of 2.5 reconstructive procedures. The BREAST-Q and satisfaction questionnaires showed no group difference. SF-36 showed no group difference but had significantly higher values in both groups compared to the general population with regard to the physical role limitations (p=0.034 and p=0.004, respectively). The DASH scores showed minimal shoulder function impact in the LD group. Aesthetic evaluations revealed a discrepancy between the opinions of the patients and surgeons, with patients valuing the size (p=0.015) and overall aesthetic (p=0.012) of the reconstructed breast higher in the DIEP group. The weighted kappa analysis showed poor agreement between patients and surgeons. Over time, the patients´ preferences shifted from LD to DIEP flaps, possibly due to the more natural aging process associated with autologous reconstruction. This underscores the importance of long term follow-up studies.
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.