SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Aesthetic Flat Closure Following Mastectomy: A Systematic Review of Techniques, Outcomes, and Patient Perspectives.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Going Flat" After Mastectomy: A Social Media Analysis of Patient Perspectives and Educational Needs.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Surgical Burden of Breast Cancer Treatment: Implications of Mastectomy, Breast Conservation, and Reconstruction Choices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAesthetic flat closure (AFC) after mastectomy is increasingly chosen by patients who forgo traditional breast reconstruction. Despite rising demand, there is limited evidence guiding optimal surgical techniques or evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
methodsWe performed a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Four databases (OVID MEDLINE, Central, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched from inception through May 29, 2024, for studies addressing surgical techniques or outcomes related to AFC. Inclusion criteria required original data on incision patterns, tissue handling, closure methods, or PROs in patients undergoing oncologic mastectomy. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.
resultsOf 142 screened studies, 6 met inclusion criteria (n = 1,577 patients). Three studies described specific surgical techniques-Angel Wing (AW) and a single-incision approach-primarily in obese patients. The AW technique showed no increase in arm lymphedema (15.6% vs 11.1%, p = 0.18) or decreased range of motion (11% vs 15.2%, p = 0.22) compared to non-AW closure. The single-incision method had a 40% wound complication rate and 20% revision rate. Three studies evaluated PROs using investigatorgenerated surveys. Common concerns included asymmetry, excess skin, and inadequate surgeon communication. No studies used validated PRO instruments.
conclusionsEvidence on AFC remains limited, with only a few studies describing operative approaches and none using validated PRO tools. Future research should aim to standardize surgical techniques, incorporate validated outcome measures, and address patient-surgeon communication to improve satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes. 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
41339925What 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.