ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Monitoring and Management of Infection following Prepectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: Retrospective Analysis of Conservative Treatment Versus Implant Removal.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Advances in application of tissue expansion technology in breast reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Breast infection after nipple piercing in augmented breasts: a case report and review of literature.Case reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery · 2026Article
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: Infection following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) represents a major complication, potentially leading to prosthesis removal. However, no clear protocol for its prevention and management exists. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of conservative treatment methods in preventing implant removal and analyze factors responsible for implant loss in the context of prepectoral IBBR. Methods: A single-institution retrospective review chart of patients undergoing immediate prepectoral IBBR for breast cancer between October 2020 and January 2024 was performed. The inclusion criteria were the presence of at least one of the following postoperative complications: seromas, cellulitis, clinically suspected prosthesis infection, and confirmed periprosthetic infection. A comparative analysis between patients with successful conservative treatment (ultrasound-guided aspiration and antibiotic therapy) and patients undergoing implant removal was performed. Results: A total of 219 immediate prepectoral IBBR cases were identified, 38 of which met inclusion criteria. Implant removal was required in 11 cases, whereas implant retention was achieved in 27 patients with conservative treatment. Implants were invariably removed when bacterial cultures were positive ( Conclusions: This study suggests that when bacterial cultures are positive, implant removal is unavoidable. Conversely, noninfected seromas correlated with implant salvage. Infections from
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.