ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Complication Profiles of Immediate Implant-Based versus Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction following Nipple/Skin-Sparing Mastectomy in Patients with Prior Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiotherapy.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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.
- Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) Entrustable Professional Activities: An Opportunity for Mixed-Methods Longitudinal Feedback.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) Entrustable Professional Activities: An Opportunity for Mixed-Methods Longitudinal Feedback.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImmediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction in patients with history of breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy presents unique challenges owing to previous surgical and radiation effects. This study evaluated the outcomes of implant-based and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction in these patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients who underwent total mastectomy followed by immediate implant-based or DIEP flap breast reconstruction between 2010 and 2023 with history of breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy were reviewed. Major complications, including infection, skin flap complications requiring surgical revision, and reconstruction failure, were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.
resultsAmong the 4306 immediate reconstructions, 105 cases met the inclusion criteria (70 implant-based and 35 DIEP flap reconstructions). The mean follow-up duration was 17.5 months in the implant-based group and 26.9 months in the DIEP group. Reconstruction failure occurred in 15.7% of the implant-based group and 0% of the DIEP group (p = 0.015). Major complications were significantly more frequent in the implant-based group than in the DIEP group (24.3% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.020). Multivariate analysis revealed that implant-based reconstruction carried 8.0-fold higher risk of major complications than DIEP reconstruction (p = 0.010). Skin-sparing mastectomy was associated with a significantly higher risk of complications than nipple-sparing mastectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 4.6, p = 0.010).
conclusionsIn patients with prior breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy, choosing a DIEP flap as a breast reconstruction modality may reduce complication risk compared with implant-based methods. These findings provide valuable guidance for preoperative patient counseling and surgical planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41396566What 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.