ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Outcomes of 32,019 Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Reconstructions: Insights from the Largest National Readmission Data.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We analyzed patient outcomes after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction using a national database to assess readmission, mortality, morbidity, and length of stay (LOS). Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized the 2017-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients had an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision procedure code for DIEP flap reconstruction from January to November each year. The primary outcome was the 30-day readmission rate, with secondary outcomes including in-hospital and 30-day mortality, reasons for admission and readmission, and complication rates. Multivariate regression adjusted for confounders. Results: A total of 32,019 DIEP flap reconstructions were identified, with a median patient age of 51 years. The most common indication was breast reconstruction after mastectomy. In-hospital, 30-day, and calendar-year mortality rates were all under 1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29-3.99). The 30-day readmission rate was 5.8% (95% CI: 5.4%-6.3%), with infection being the leading cause of readmission (2.0%), a previously unreported finding. Other causes included wound dehiscence (0.19%), pulmonary embolism (0.19%), sepsis (0.18%), and hematoma (0.18%). Reoperation rates were 7% during the index hospitalization and 11% during readmission. The average LOS was 3.7 days (95% CI: 3.65-3.82), consistent with current literature. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into DIEP flap reconstruction outcomes, revealing a 2.0% infection readmission rate. It shows a higher overall readmission rate (7% versus 5.6%) and a lower dehiscence rate (0.2% versus 2.8%) compared with previous data. These findings, derived from the largest nationally representative readmission database in the United States, also demonstrate comparable reoperation rates and LOS.
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.