Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41502601›Full record

ArticleGland surgery2025

Comparative outcomes of prepectoral

Hye Ju Han, Chang Jun Lee, Jun Yong Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gland surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hye Ju HanDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chang Jun LeeDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jun Yong LeeDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted surgical techniques are increasingly adopted in breast reconstruction, yet the optimal implant placement approach remains debated. Robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (RANSM) with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction using the Da Vinci system has shown improved cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. While prepectoral reconstruction offers easier implant placement and fewer complications, subpectoral reconstruction provides better upper pole contours and reduced acellular dermal matrix (ADM) requirements. This study compared surgical and esthetic outcomes between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches in robot-assisted immediate prosthetic reconstruction. Methods: This single-institute retrospective analysis included patients with breast cancer who underwent RANSM with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction between October 2021 and May 2024. Seventeen breasts from 10 patients (five prepectoral and five subpectoral cases) were analyzed. Surgical metrics, including operation time, console time, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications, were assessed. Seven independent plastic surgeons graded 1-year postoperative esthetic outcomes using the Harvard/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project scale. Results: The prepectoral group demonstrated significantly better esthetic outcomes (mean score, 2.42) than those of the subpectoral group (mean score, 3.65; P=0.04). Complication rates were similar between groups, with animation deformities occurring exclusively in the subpectoral group. Subpectoral reconstruction required additional ADM in patients with curved thoracic contours due to muscle injuries. Conclusions: In conclusion, prepectoral reconstruction provides superior esthetics outcomes and eliminates animation deformity, while subpectoral reconstruction may offer enhanced upper pole support. Both methods offer distinct benefits, with patient-specific factors being crucial for optimal approach selection. Larger studies are needed to refine patient selection and outcomes in robot-assisted reconstruction.

Indexed as

acellular dermisbreast implantsmastectomyRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID41502601
PMCPMC12771137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.