ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Pushing the DIEP Envelope: Where Are We Now?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Microsurgical Rehabilitation Using Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction Combined With Vascularized Lymph Node Transfer and Abdominoplasty.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Cosmetic Principles and Contemporary Techniques: Achieving Aesthetic Outcomes in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A Meta-analysis of Nontraditional Uses of Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flaps.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- A review of nipple-areola complex reconstruction and tattooing techniques.Gland surgery · 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
The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap in breast reconstruction has been an evolution in providing an ideal autologous reconstruction while minimizing donor site morbidity. Innovations have continued to optimize the DIEP flap in multiple facets. Alternative flap designs, vasculature modifications, and conjoined and stacked flaps have improved the ability to increase flap volume and perfusion. Advancements in anatomic understanding of the abdomen have resulted in decreases in donor site morbidity and improved abdominal outcomes. Patient satisfaction regarding aesthetics has been enhanced through careful consideration of mastectomy techniques and recipient site modifications in addition to improved quality of life outcomes through sensory innervation. The study reviews the evolution and current state of abdominally-based breast reconstruction in its goal of optimizing aesthetic, patient-reported and quality-of-life outcomes while minimizing complications.
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.