ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Two-stage Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Without the Use of Tissue Expanders.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of a tissue expander (TE) followed by a definitive implant is the most common approach for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. The purpose of this study was to determine if a first-stage, low-projection definitive silicone implant could replace the use of a TE. Methods: Between January 2016 and January 2024, 155 consecutive high-risk patients with breast cancer underwent breast reconstruction with a first-stage definitive implant after mastectomy in the implant-only (IO) group. All IO patients underwent a subsequent second-stage implant exchange to get to their goal reconstruction size. Outcomes were compared with a similar high-risk population who underwent conventional 2-stage reconstruction with a first-stage TE. Results: The risk of all complications, including reconstructive failure, was similar between the groups, except for an increased risk of minor postoperative wounds in the IO group and a higher risk of seroma requiring operative drainage in the TE group. Conclusions: The success rate of 2-stage breast reconstruction in high-risk patients after mastectomy is similar using either a first-stage TE or low-projection definitive implant. Two-stage reconstruction using the IO approach offers patients the opportunity to reduce the cost, discomfort, inconvenience, and complications associated with repeated TE fills. It also allows them to pursue their second-stage reconstruction at their convenience when compared with patients with TEs who are encouraged to undergo exchange in a timely fashion.
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.