SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Umbilicoplasty Techniques and Outcomes in Abdominally Based Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUmbilicoplasty is a critical step in donor-site closure following abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction (ABR). While various incision designs and transposition techniques have been described, their impact on patient- and surgeon-assessed aesthetic outcomes remains poorly defined.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched through August 1, 2025, for studies evaluating umbilicoplasty after ABR. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting surgical technique, aesthetic, and/or patient satisfaction outcomes. Data extraction included study characteristics, surgical techniques, patient- and surgeon-assessed aesthetic outcomes, and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using standardized tools.
resultsEight studies comprising 362 patients met inclusion criteria. Umbilicoplasty techniques varied, including oval, U/inverted-U, and Mercedes/inverted Mercedes as well as a neo-umbilicoplasty approaches. Complication rates were low with hypertrophic scarring and umbilical stenosis being most common. Aesthetic outcomes were variably reported, with limited use of validated scales, but generally favored designs that avoid an uninterrupted oval.
conclusionWhile reported complication rates are low, methodological limitations and underreporting preclude definitive conclusions about technique safety or superiority. Umbilicoplasty should be individualized, with careful attention to perfusion. Future studies should prioritize standardized reporting, validated outcome measures, and multicenter collaboration to strengthen the evidence base and guide best practices in abdominally based breast reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41266640What 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.