ArticleInternational journal of surgery protocols2025
Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction in prepectoral versus subpectoral planes: a meta-analysis framework for comparing complication rates and patient-reported outcomes.
Article in International journal of surgery protocols, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction has become a widely accepted approach for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Traditionally, implants were placed in the subpectoral (SP) plane to maximize soft tissue coverage; however, recent advances in surgical technique and implant materials, such as acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and meshes, have led to a resurgence in the prepectoral (PP) approach. Recent studies have shown conflicting evidence regarding their respective complication profiles and patient-reported outcomes. Thus, comprehensive head-to-head meta-analysis is needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PP versus SP in DTI breast reconstruction. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review and meta-analysis will compare complication rates and patient-reported outcomes between PP and SP in DTI reconstruction. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinicaltrials.org will be searched to identify comparative studies. Eligible studies must report at least one primary outcome, such as capsular contracture or surgical complications. Secondary outcomes will include BREAST-Q scores, pain scores, and length of hospital stay. Data will be extracted independently by two reviewers, and methodological quality will be assessed using appropriate risk of bias tools (ROBINS-I for nonrandomized studies and Rob 2 for randomized controlled trials). Meta-analysis will be performed using Review Manager 5.4, applying random-effects models in cases of significant heterogeneity. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted where applicable. Discussion: This study aims to synthesize the current evidence comparing PP and SP in DTI breast reconstruction to inform surgical decision-making and optimize patient outcomes. The results will provide surgeons and patients with a clearer understanding of the benefits and risks associated with each reconstructive plane.
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.