Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41502604›Full record

ArticleGland surgery2025

Comparing autologous breast reconstruction in high

Colin G White-Dzuro, Nicholas T Haddock

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Colin G White-DzuroDepartment of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2225-8902
Nicholas T HaddockDepartment of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4649-6147

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Breast reconstruction has been shown to significantly improve quality of life (QoL) for women who must undergo mastectomy. Between the implant-based and autologous-based reconstruction, autologous-based reconstruction has demonstrated better outcomes in both QoL and overall satisfaction as reported by the BREAST-Q. For patients desiring autologous reconstruction, a woman's weight and body habitus can affect not only the pre-operative planning, but also outcomes in terms of both complications as well as overall satisfaction. Here, we present our cohort that has been stratified by body mass index (BMI) and compare how BMI can influence flap selection as well as complications. Methods: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective review in a REDCap database-guided analysis was conducted of patients who underwent autologous reconstruction with longitudinal follow-up at a single academic institution from 2013 to 2024. Patients were then stratified into BMI categories as outlined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) including healthy (18.5≤ BMI <25 kg/m Results: A total of 957 patients were identified who fit the inclusion criteria, with 239 patients sorted into the healthy (18.5≤ BMI <25 kg/m Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort study, we found that patients with healthy BMI are more likely to undergo multi-flap or non-abdominally based flap reconstruction and less frequently rely on DIEP flaps than women of overweight or obese BMI. Furthermore, patients with obese BMI are more likely to have post-operative complications at either the breast or donor site. A deeper look into perioperative data and complications will help understand other differences between the subgroups in terms of surgical efficacy and safety.

Indexed as

autologousbody mass index (BMI)Breast reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID41502604
PMCPMC12771214

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.