ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Study of One-Stage Pre-pectoral Implant Breast Reconstruction With and Without Mesh.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Absorbable Synthetic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Subcutaneous Mastectomy: A Systematic Review with Clinical and Economic Considerations.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Minimal-access Nipple-sparing Mastectomy With Prepectoral Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction Without Acellular Dermal Matrix or Synthetic Mesh.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Lipodermal Flaps in One-Stage Pre-pectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Wise-Pattern Mastectomy: A Single-Center Experience.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Prepectoral breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gland surgery · 2025Article
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 Pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has become increasingly popular because it is associated with less postoperative pain and earlier recovery than traditional sub-pectoral techniques. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in pre-pectoral reconstruction is thought to provide additional support for the implant and improve cosmetic outcomes. However, it leads to additional costs. This study aimed to compare the early outcomes of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh. Methodology An observational, single-surgeon, retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to evaluate patients who underwent one-stage pre-pectoral breast reconstruction between May 2019 and July 2023 at Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. Patient characteristics such as demographics, implant size, and postoperative complications were noted and compared. Statistical significance between groups was evaluated using chi-square tests, and a p-value <0.05 was deemed statistically significant. Results A total of 101 patients were included, with 52 patients with ADM and 49 patients without ADM. In total, 60 implant reconstructions were included in each group. Patients in the ADM group were younger than patients in the cohort without the mesh (median = 50 versus 56 years). Patients with ADM also had a higher median volume of breast implants than patients without mesh (430 vs. 330 cc). There were statistically more patients requiring postoperative radiotherapy in the ADM mesh group (p = 0.049). The early postoperative outcomes in both groups were comparable with no statistical differences in the rate of infection, seroma requiring aspiration, or implant loss. Conclusions This study which is one of the few studies comparing one-stage pre-pectoral implant reconstruction with and without mesh demonstrated that pre-pectoral reconstruction with no ADM is cost-effective and associated with comparable early postoperative outcomes. Our early observational series showed satisfactory outcomes; however, further studies are required to investigate longer-term and patient-related outcomes.
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.