ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Unilateral Versus Bilateral Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Reconstruction Outcomes Across Body Mass Index Categories: A Retrospective Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Chest Wall Perforator Flaps in Partial Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- The Impact of Hormonal Therapy on Autologous Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Complications of Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction in Prophylactic Versus Therapeutic Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes in Unilateral Versus Bilateral DIEP Flap Reconstructions: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- 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
Background: Previous studies have shown a higher complication rate in bilateral (BL) compared to unilateral (UL) deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstructions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to offer an update by including recent studies to thoroughly assess the complication rates in UL versus BL DIEP flap reconstructions and provide clear guidance for clinicians and their patients. Methods: A systematic review of the literature and comparative meta-analysis were performed to assess the differences in complication rates between UL and BL procedures. Only comparative studies that reported on postoperative complications after UL and BL DIEP flap breast reconstructions were included. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Five studies representing 5120 patients who underwent either UL or BL DIEP flap breast reconstructions were included. BL DIEP flap reconstructions were associated with a higher risk of total flap loss, with an OR of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.02-2.14) and a Conclusions: BL DIEP flap breast reconstruction carries a higher risk of complete flap loss compared with UL reconstructions, with a moderate risk increase. Despite this increased risk, the significant benefits of BL reconstruction make it a viable and recommended option for women requiring this type of surgery.
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.