ReviewJPRAS open2025
Extended reality for mapping perforator-based flaps in breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JPRAS 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.
- Cosmetic Principles and Contemporary Techniques: Achieving Aesthetic Outcomes in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Extended reality for perforator visualization in deep inferior epigastric perforator autologous breast reconstruction: A systematic review.JPRAS open · 2026Review
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: Extended reality technologies including augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) can be used in surgical settings for surgical planning, perioperative visualisation of patient anatomy and simulation of operative steps. This study aimed to ascertain the role of extended reality in perforator-based breast reconstruction. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed. Screening was conducted independently by two reviewers, with conflicts resolved through consensus. Results: In total, 4957 articles were identified of which 10 were included, comprising 229 flaps. Overall, localisation of perforator emergence with AR and VR were 4 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2-4.9) and 14 mm (95% CI 5.5-22.5), respectively, from the correct intraoperatively identified location. Two studies reported a significant reduction in harvesting time (88 min for VR and 19 min for AR). The pooled mean image processing time from four studies was 39±47 min. Preoperative VR was associated with shorter operative times than conventional Doppler ultrasound (478±56.94 vs 606.29 ± 81.94 min, P<0.05). Use of a simulated environment for mapping perforators appeared to reduce complications (wound breakdown, flap revision, flap loss, infection); however, this failed to reach statistical significance (odds ratio 0.6; 95% CI 0.3-1.3; P=0.20). Conclusions: This study suggests that AR and VR offer limited benefit in improving accuracy of perforator identification; however, they may reduce flap harvesting and total operative time. Key limitations include heterogeneity and quality of the included studies. With larger sample sizes and higher quality evidence, definitive benefits and longitudinal outcomes relating to use of extended reality in perforator-based breast reconstruction may be established.
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.