ReviewJPRAS open2025
Evaluation of aesthetic flat closure: A scoping review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Going Flat" After Mastectomy: A Social Media Analysis of Patient Perspectives and Educational Needs.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Insights Into 'Living Flat': A Qualitative Study of Patients Who Have Mastectomy Without Reconstruction.Psycho-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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postmastectomy patients may choose to not have breast reconstruction and opt for a flat closure. Aesthetic flat closure (AFC) is intentional incision selection and maneuvers for chest wall contour to optimize the aesthetic result. Patients may have a specific expectation of aesthetic outcomes, making AFC a new type of reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to perform a scoping review to define 1) patients who receive flat closure after mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer and their motivations for flat closure, 2) surgical techniques used to accomplish AFC, and 3) patient-reported outcomes of flat closure. A systematic search was conducted through MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. Articles were grouped into three overall categories of population description, surgical techniques, and outcomes. Within each category, major themes were identified. The literature search identified 48 articles and 15 met study criteria. Those who had no breast reconstruction considered risks, breast functionality, recovery time, and foreign body placement. Studies reported lack of surgeon support in patients' decisions for flat closure. Surgical techniques for AFC included scar placement at the inframammary fold, medial and lateral debulking, and dog ear prevention. There were 89.9 % (328/365) of patients who were satisfied in choosing a flat closure and 58.2 % (689/1183) were satisfied with cosmesis. Patients chose flat closure for various reasons including avoiding additional surgery. Surgeon supported decision-making and comprehensive education on reconstructive and non-reconstructive options are critical to patient experiences. While patients are satisfied with their decision of flat closure, optimization of aesthetic results can be achieved by implementing chest wall reconstruction techniques with the specific goal of obtaining an AFC.
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.