ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
The Impact of Hormonal Therapy on Autologous Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Current Therapies for Breast Cancer: What the Plastic Surgeon Needs to Know.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hormonal therapy (HT) is pivotal in managing hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, in autologous microvascular breast reconstructions (AMBRs), HT raises concerns, particularly regarding venous thromboembolic (VTE) risk and its potential impact on flap viability. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of HT on complications of AMBR. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all comparative studies reporting postoperative complications of AMBR in patients receiving HT in comparison with a control group. All types of free flaps were included. Complications were categorized and compared. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Eight studies, encompassing 4776 flaps performed on 3796 patients undergoing AMBR with or without HT, were included. Patients undergoing HT were treated with either selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) or aromatase inhibitors. Five studies compared both treatments to a control group, whereas 3 studies focused on tamoxifen. Only studies with retrospective design could be included. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of overall flap complication rates, partial and total flap loss, flap fat necrosis, flap pedicle arterial and/or venous thrombosis, or systemic VTE. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of systemic VTE in the SERMs group compared with controls, while other complications were not significant. Conclusions: Our results show that HT does not increase the risk of flap complications in the context of AMBR, whereas SERMs increase the risk of systemic VTE. Further research with prospective studies is warranted to confirm these findings.
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.