ReviewJPRAS open2025
A scoping review of the Goldilocks mastectomy.
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 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.
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: The Goldilocks mastectomy was originally developed as a "middle ground" between a breast reconstruction and a modified radical mastectomy, particularly for obese women who are poor candidates for direct breast reconstruction. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of surgical techniques, complications, cosmetic outcomes and patient-reported quality of life following the Goldilocks mastectomy. Methods: Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines a systematic search was conducted in March 2025, using PubMed and Embase. The identified studies were screened by two independent reviewers, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data focusing on surgical technique, complications and outcomes was extracted and recorded. Results: Fourteen articles were included, representing a total of 486 women (758 breasts). The majority were retrospective cohort studies. The Goldilocks mastectomy techniques reported varied, with some studies describing modifications to add more volume or cause less scarring. Common complications included seroma, wound dehiscence and fat necrosis. Four studies reported on secondary surgeries for volume enhancement. Three studies assessed cosmetic outcomes, which showed mixed results. Patient-reported quality of life, measured using the BREAST-Q, showed scores comparable to traditional reconstruction techniques. Conclusion: Goldilocks mastectomy provides a safe reconstructive option, especially for obese patients. Complication rates are comparable to those found in traditional mastectomy techniques and patient satisfaction appears favorable. However, limited high-quality evidence exists regarding long-term cosmetic outcomes and quality of life measurements. Further research using more standardized outcome measures is needed to fully evaluate the pros and cons of the Goldilocks mastectomy in breast reconstruction.
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.