ArticleBMC cancer2025
Application of chest wall perforator flaps in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of intercostal artery perforator flap in granulomatous lobular mastitis: a single-center retrospective study.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Role of chest wall perforator flaps in reconstruction of upper inner breast defects.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- The anterior intercostal artery perforator flap in immediate oncoplastic breast reconstruction: current applications and future perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Lateral Intercostal Artery Perforator (LICAP) Flap for Level II Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction: Our Initial Experience.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Correction of breast deformities after breast-conserving surgery in Chinese women with breast cancer: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to explore the application value of chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted on 22 early-stage breast cancer patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using CWPF between January 2021 and December 2022. This included 4 cases (18.2%) utilizing lateral intercostal artery perforator (LICAP) flaps, 10 cases (45.4%) employing lateral thoracic artery perforator (LTAP) flaps, 4 cases (18.2%) combining LICAP and LTAP flaps, and 4 cases (18.2%) using anterior intercostal artery perforator (AICAP) flaps. The perforators used in this study included lateral thoracic artery perforators (LTAP), anterior intercostal artery perforators (AICAP), and lateral intercostal artery perforators (LICAP). In some cases, a combination of LICAP and LTAP was employed to ensure adequate blood supply. All flaps were supplied by dominant perforators, with some cases using multiple perforators to enhance flap perfusion and survival. Our single-center experience with CWPF, including surgical details, complications, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes, is reported.
resultsAmong all patients, tumors were located in the outer quadrant (68.2%), central quadrant (13.6%), and inner quadrant (18.2%) of the excision cavity. In the 22 patients, 15 tumors were located in the outer quadrant: 6 in the left upper outer quadrant (1-2 o'clock), 4 in the right upper outer quadrant (10-11 o'clock), and 5 in the outer quadrants (3 o'clock in 3 cases and 9 o'clock in 2 cases). Four tumors were in the lower inner quadrant: 2 in the left lower inner quadrant (7-8 o'clock) and 2 in the right lower inner quadrant (4-5 o'clock). Three tumors were in the central area extending toward the outer quadrant. All tumors were located more than 2 cm from the nipple-areola complex (NAC), and intraoperative frozen sections confirmed negative margins behind the NAC. All patients had negative surgical margins. The average operative time was 100.5 ± 10.2 min, with flap lengths ranging from 10 to 18 cm and widths from 4 to 10 cm. All flaps survived, with only one instance of surgical site infection, which improved with conservative treatment. Overall patient satisfaction was rated as excellent or good in 85.6%, and physician evaluation was 89.0% excellent or good. In addition to subjective patient and surgeon satisfaction surveys, objective aesthetic outcomes were evaluated using the BCCT.core software. This tool provided a standardized assessment of breast symmetry, contour, and cosmetic outcomes, enhancing the objectivity and reproducibility of the cosmetic evaluation in the study. The median follow-up period was 14.5 months, with one case of tumor recurrence and no patient mortality.
conclusionCWPF can be effectively used in small-to-medium volume, non-ptotic breasts for oncoplastic surgery, yielding high patient satisfaction. In the era of oncoplastic breast surgery, chest wall perforator flaps are a reliable and safe option for partial breast reconstruction with acceptable aesthetic results.
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.