ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Radiation and Reconstructive Failure: Long-Term Outcomes in Two-Stage Flap Versus Implant Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Burden of Breast Cancer Treatment: Implications of Mastectomy, Breast Conservation, and Reconstruction Choices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Personalized Breast Reconstruction After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Risk-Informed Approaches to Technique Selection and Timing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Invited Editorial: Radiation and Reconstructive Failure-Long-Term Outcomes in Two-Stage Flap versus Implant Breast Reconstruction.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe long-term risk of reconstructive failure and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients undergoing two-stage flap or implant reconstruction combined with radiation is unknown. We assessed the risk of reconstructive failure and PROs after two-stage flap or implant reconstruction with radiation. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe analyzed all patients who underwent two-stage flap or implant reconstruction and radiation between 2017 and 2023. Reconstructive failure was defined as loss of the TE, implant, or flap, or the need to convert an implant to flap reconstruction. PROs were assessed using BREAST-Q. Predictors of reconstructive failure were identified with Cox proportional hazards models, and predicted rates were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves.
resultsIn total, 1210 patients underwent TE placement followed by flap (n = 215) or implant-based (n = 930) reconstruction. Reconstructive failure was seen in 157 (13%) patients; 65 in the TE stage, 89 after implant reconstruction, and 3 after flap reconstruction. Predicted rates of reconstructive failure at 72-months after mastectomy were 12% for implant and 1.4% for flap reconstruction. Patients who underwent implant reconstruction were 7.5 times more likely to experience failure than flap reconstruction (HR: 7.5, 95% CI: 2.36-24.2, p < 0.001). Median BREAST-Q satisfaction with breast scores at 3 years were significantly higher in patients who underwent flap (65, IQR:52, 73) versus implant reconstruction (57, IQR:46, 67).
conclusionsPatients who undergo implant reconstruction and radiation face a higher risk of long-term reconstructive failure and report lower PROs. This emphasizes the need to counsel patients about the long-term risks and quality of life associated with implant reconstruction in the setting of radiation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41191309What 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.