Observational studyJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2025
Patient-reported outcomes following various incision techniques in breast reconstruction: an observational cohort study in China.
Observational study in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate patient satisfaction with different incision types in breast reconstruction surgery in China and to explore the factors related to these outcomes.
methodsThis single-center, retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent breast reconstruction at Hubei Cancer Hospital from September 2022 to September 2024. The patients were divided into four groups based on the incision type: (1) lateral axillary incision, (2) radial incision, (3) inferolateral inframammary fold incision, and (4) endoscopic-assisted surgery. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected ≥ 3 months after surgery using the Breast Cancer Core Scale (BREAST-Q) V2.0, the EuroQol five-dimension five-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). It should be noted that the type of incision was non-randomly allocated, although multivariate regression was performed to adjust for potential confounding factors.
resultsA total of 209 patients were included in this study. 34 (16.3%), 67 (32.1%), 64 (30.6%), and 44 (21.1%) patients underwent lateral axillary incision, radial incision, inferolateral inframammary fold incision, and endoscopic-assisted surgery, respectively. The endoscopic-assisted surgery group had the highest satisfaction (59.00 [IQR 57.75, 65.00]), and the radial incision group had the lowest satisfaction (53.00 [IQR 47.00-60.50]) (P = 0.007). Multivariable linear regression showed that a reduction in bra size was negatively independently associated with breast satisfaction (β = - 18.662, 95%CI: -26.789, -10.535, P < 0.001), while an inferolateral inframammary fold incision was positively independently associated with breast satisfaction (β = 6.430, 95%CI: 0.199, 12.662, P = 0.043). Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) (β = 7.468, 95%CI: 0.557-14.308, P = 0.034) and prepectoral implant plane (β = 6.756, 95%CI: 0.278-13.234, P = 0.041) were both positively independently associated with the DRS scores.
conclusionDespite the study's limitations, our findings indicate that traditional techniques such as radial incision and inferolateral inframammary fold incision are still prevalent in China. Endoscopic-assisted surgery is associated with superior patient-reported satisfaction, highlighting its potential value for wider dissemination in clinical practice. Factors influencing patient satisfaction include reduced bra cup size, surgical approach, and implant plane.
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.