ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Comparative Analysis of Aesthetic Abdominoplasty Versus Simple Abdominal Closure in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Donor-site Seroma in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Pooled Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Autologous breast reconstruction using the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is considered the gold standard for natural and lasting results. Recent focus has shifted toward improving donor-site aesthetics. This retrospective study compared standard versus aesthetic abdominal wall closure techniques. Methods: We analyzed 46 patients who underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction at Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi between 2021 and 2024. Group 1 (n = 21) received standard closure with Vicryl fascial sutures, interrupted quilting sutures, and drains. Group 2 (n = 25) underwent aesthetic closure with barbed quilting sutures along the linea alba and semilunaris, optional flank liposuction (24%), and selective drain use. Prophylactic mesh was placed in both groups. Outcomes included operative time, hospital stay, complications, and aesthetic assessments at 6 months. Results: Group 2 had a significantly longer operative time (524 versus 435 min, Conclusions: Aesthetic closure may enhance donor-site contour in selected patients, particularly those with lower body mass index and localized adiposity. However, given the marginal aesthetic improvement and increased operative time, its routine use is not justified.
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.