Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41215861›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2025

The chronologic history of post-mastectomy breast reconstructive surgery in the United Kingdom from 1975 to 2025.

Haleema Khan, James D Frame, James D Frame

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Haleema KhanThe School of Medicine, Faculty of HEMS, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK.
James D FrameThe School of Medicine, Faculty of HEMS, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK.
James D FrameThe School of Medicine, Faculty of HEMS, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The options for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction have increased considerably over the past 50 years and depend on the resultant disfigurement from surgery and or radiotherapy. Radical and modified radical mastectomy were considered the acceptable treatment for breast cancer until the mid-1970's and would often be followed with post-mastectomy radiotherapy. This presented a major challenge for reconstructive surgeons because of limited surgical options, but as the approach to the management of breast cancer became less aggressive and a therapeutic dose of radiotherapy was fractionated the reconstructive ladder expanded. Where post-mastectomy skin flaps were healthy and radiotherapy was not planned, the introduction of breast implants and saline-filled expanders enabled less traumatic immediate, delayed and revisional reconstructions. Controversies continue to follow the history of implantable breast implants, but polyurethane covered implants have a historically proven advantage over silicone shelled implants, with a significant reduction in the rate of capsular contracture. An understanding of the axial vascular supply of local and regional flaps, and the vascular territories of free flaps, dramatically improved the opportunity to more closely restore breast shape and form using composites of healthy tissue. The technique for harvesting of autologous fat graft and the appropriate use of acellular dermal matrix products has further improved the outcomes. Contemporary breast cancer management has become an inter- and multi-disciplinary specialty, and reconstructive outcomes will more likely result in remarkable symmetry of size, shape and volume of the breast reconstruction. This paper describes the chronology and variety of options that became available to selected breast cancer patients for reconstruction in the United Kingdom over the course of 50 years.

Indexed as

Breastimplantsreconstructionsiliconevascularised flaps

Identifiers

PMID41215861
PMCPMC12596459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.