Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39758216›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2025

Global perspectives on practices and preferences in autologous free flap breast reconstruction: From flap selection to postoperative care A descriptive quantitative study.

Sanderley J Bonafastia, Lennart M Steenbeek, Dietmar J O Ulrich, Stefan Hummelink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sanderley J BonafastiaRadboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Sanderley.
Lennart M SteenbeekRadboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Lennart.
Dietmar J O UlrichRadboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Dietmar.
Stefan HummelinkRadboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Stefan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the present-day practices in the preparation, peri-, and postoperative care for patients undergoing autologous free flap breast reconstructions (ABR) worldwide, with the aim of enhancing informed decision-making for plastic surgeons during the planning stages of ABR. Methods: A global survey was conducted among 280 plastic surgeons and 39 plastic and reconstructive surgery societies worldwide, enquiring about flap and donor site selection, surgical actions, perforator imaging, and perioperative care during ABR. Results: Eighty-two responses were received, among which 71% (n=58) were completed questionnaires. The preferred flap of choice was the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (85%, n=51), with the internal mammary artery as the most commonly used recipient vessel. Preoperative imaging for ABR was typically performed using computed tomography angiography (75%, n=44) and often combined with a handheld Doppler. Handheld Doppler was the most frequently used modality to localize perforator vessels during surgery (33%, n=19), with the majority using either one (47%, n=24) or two (51%, n=26) perforators intraoperatively. These preferences were consistent across all clinic types.Postoperatively, flap monitoring was primarily performed by the nursing staff, initially every hour on the first day and at reduced frequencies on subsequent days.The most commonly used modality for monitoring flap viability was the handheld Doppler. The average length of hospital stay was 5 days. Conclusion: This study provides valuable insights into the current preparations and peri- and postoperative care in ABR procedures worldwide, aiding in the development of standardized practices and potentially improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Autologous breast reconstructionDeep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flapFlap monitoringPerforator imagingPerioperative care

Identifiers

PMID39758216
PMCPMC11697778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.