Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40237008›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025

Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction in Patients With or Without Previous Abdominal Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis.

Gauthier Zinner, Jérôme Martineau, Carlo M Oranges

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gauthier ZinnerFrom the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jérôme MartineauFrom the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland.
Carlo M OrangesFrom the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is now considered the gold standard for autologous breast reconstructions (BRs). Previous abdominal surgery (PAS) is considered to be a potential contraindication to abdominal-based BR. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the impact of PAS following a DIEP flap BR comparing patients with or without PAS. Methods: A systematic review of the literature and comparative meta-analysis were performed to assess the differences in abdominal donor-site and flap complication rates between patients with or without PAS. Only comparative studies that reported on postoperative complications following DIEP flap BR were included. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Nine studies were included, representing 2440 patients with or without PAS corresponding to 3082 DIEP flap BR. There were no differences across groups in flap-related complication rates. However, PAS was associated with an increase in the overall rate of abdominal complications (odds ratio = 1.92; 95% confidence interval = 1.41-2.62; Conclusions: PAS is not a contraindication to DIEP flap BR, and no increase in the flap complication rate has been found in association with PAS. However, our study shows that PAS is associated with a higher overall abdominal complication rate at the donor site.

Identifiers

PMID40237008
PMCPMC11999400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.