ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: retrospective analysis of 91 consecutive cases.
Article in Updates in surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implant-based reconstruction is the main post-mastectomy reconstructive method. With the introduction of acellular dermal matrices (ADM), direct-to-implant reconstruction has, in selected patients, replaced dual-stage technique with tissue expander. The objective of this study is to compare postoperative outcomes and quality of life of three DTI breast reconstruction techniques: pre-pectoral with ADM versus submuscular without ADM versus submuscular with ADM (dual plane). A retrospective study was conducted between January 2020 and April 2023. The enrolled patients were divided into three groups: patients who underwent mastectomy and pre-pectoral reconstruction with ADM (group A); patients treated with submuscular reconstruction without ADM (group B); and patients who underwent submuscular reconstruction with ADM (group C). Minor and major complications, revision rates, and capsular contracture rates were recorded, and patients underwent the BRECON-31 postoperative questionnaire. A total of 27 pre-pectoral reconstructions with ADM, 41 submuscular reconstructions without ADM, and 23 dual-plane reconstructions with ADM were performed. The incidence of major complications (p = 0.076) and severe capsular contracture (p = 0.048) was higher in group C. Group C achieved lower results than other groups for all BRECON-31 categories except for Recovery category. According to the study findings, the direct-to-implant breast reconstruction showed to be effective; however, the pre-pectoral technique with ADM does not seem to have superiority over the conventional muscle-pocket technique in terms of reducing complication rate and overall patient satisfaction.Level of evidence: 4.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41087822What 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.