ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Chest wall perforator flap reconstruction in breast conserving surgery: quality of life and limited complications in outpatient treatment.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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.
- Role of chest wall perforator flaps in reconstruction of upper inner breast defects.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Breast-Conserving Surgery inLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Combination of Chest Wall Perforator Flaps and Surgeon-Performed Breast Ultrasound: An Effective Synergy to Expand the Boundaries of Breast-Conserving Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast conserving surgery (BCS) with partial breast reconstruction (PBR) results in less morbidity, better cosmetic outcomes, and improved patient satisfaction compared to mastectomy. Perforator flap reconstruction can attenuate defects prone to breast deformity after BCS. Usually, postoperative drains and inpatient admission are part of this treatment. The main objective of this study is to report on postoperative complications and patient satisfaction after drainless perforator flap reconstruction by a dedicated breast surgeon.
methodsIn a retrospective case series, 42 patients were included. All patients underwent BCS with drainless perforator flap reconstruction, planned and performed by a single breast surgeon. Outcomes were complication incidence and patient satisfaction reported in the Breast-Q Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT) module.
resultsIn the study cohort, the median age was 59.5 (49.8-71.3) years. Tumour types were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, four patients, 9.5%), invasive no special type (NST, 22 patients, 52.4%), invasive lobular (12 patients, 28.6%), and other invasive cancers (4 patients, 9.5%). Complication incidence was seven of 42 patients (16.7%), including hematoma, seroma, wound dehiscence, fat necrosis, and lymphedema, all Clavien Dindo grade 0-1, without readmission or reoperation. Reported Breast-Q scores (median of 17 months after surgery) were 87/100 for psychosocial well-being, 82/100 for breast satisfaction, and 71/100 for physical well-being. Outpatient treatment was successful in 38 patients (90.5%), and 13 patients (31.0%) had an unplanned visit to the outpatient clinic.
conclusionDrainless perforator flap reconstruction performed by the breast surgeon results in high patient satisfaction and limited complications, both in number and severity. The use of drains and hospital stays after perforator flap reconstruction must be discouraged.
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.