ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Maximizing Aesthetic Outcomes in Delayed Breast Reconstruction: the Be.A.U.T-I.F.U.L. DIEP
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 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.
- Cosmetic Principles and Contemporary Techniques: Achieving Aesthetic Outcomes in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Abdominal-based vs. alternative flaps: Surgical outcomes and quality of life following different techniques of autologous breast reconstruction.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Impact of Contralateral Implant Placement in Unilateral Implant-Based Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn microvascular breast reconstruction, the focus has shifted to achieving aesthetically pleasing results. Delayed breast reconstruction poses challenges such as ensuring natural ptosis and avoiding a "patch" effect. The Be.A.U.T-I.F.U.L. deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap inset, presented here, offers a systematic and sequential seven-step method to optimize breast reconstruction outcomes.
methodsThis approach emphasizes safety during flap harvest using the best (Be.) perforator identified via computed tomography angiography to minimize dissection and ensure solid perfusion. The flap is placed obliquely, directing its tail to the axilla (A.), enhancing upper (U.) pole volume and ptosis. The flap base is tucked-in (T-I.) to increase the projection of the breast mound, and its lateral portion is split as a fishtail (F.): the upper (U.) fin is used to define the lateral inframammary fold and prevent lateral displacement of the reconstructed breast, while the lower (L.) fin is turned under the flap to further improve projection.
conclusionThis structured approach, focusing on key breast aesthetics, ensures optimal cosmetic outcomes and can serve for most delayed microsurgical breast reconstruction scenarios. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
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.