ArticleCureus2024
Psychosocial Outcomes of Subpectoral vs. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction in prepectoral versus subpectoral planes: a meta-analysis framework for comparing complication rates and patient-reported outcomes.International journal of surgery protocols · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Breast reconstruction plays a critical role in restoring psychosocial well-being for patients after mastectomy. While both subpectoral and pre-pectoral implant placements are common, their impact on psychosocial outcomes remains understudied. This study investigates the influence of implant placement on patient-reported psychosocial well-being using BREAST-Q (Breast-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire). Methods We reviewed 69 patients who underwent breast reconstruction at Basildon Hospital between 2017 and 2023, utilizing BREAST-Q scales to evaluate psychosocial well-being, physical outcomes, and satisfaction with breasts. Statistical analysis was conducted using independent t-tests to compare psychosocial scores between patients who received subpectoral versus pre-pectoral implants. Results Subpectoral placement was significantly associated with higher psychosocial scores compared to pre-pectoral placement (75.7 vs. 61.9, p=0.046). No significant differences were observed in satisfaction with breasts between the two groups. Linear regression analysis revealed that subpectoral placement was an independent predictor of improved psychosocial outcomes, even after adjusting for other variables. Conclusions Subpectoral implant placement appears to offer superior psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction patients compared to pre-pectoral placement. These findings suggest that subpectoral placement should be considered the preferred option for patients prioritizing psychosocial well-being post-reconstruction. Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of implant placement on quality of life.
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.