ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Co-surgery in Breast Reconstruction: Is the Helping Surgeon Actually Hurting?
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Successful microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction (MABR) requires significant resources. The co-surgery model, involving 2 experienced surgeons, aims to improve outcomes. This study evaluated the financial and patient benefits of implementing a co-surgery model in MABR at an academic center. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on MABR procedures (2021-2023) at an academic cancer center. Encounters were categorized by the co-surgery modifier (-62) or single-surgeon. Financial data (expected versus actual payments, time to payment) and patient outcomes (complications, flap compromise) were collected. Statistical analysis used the Pearson χ Results: Of 393 encounters, 193 were single-surgeon, and 200 were co-surgery. Single-surgeon cases had more accurate payments (88.5% versus 76.4%, Conclusions: The co-surgery model in MABR enhances surgical efficiency but complicates billing, resulting in underpayment and delayed reimbursement. Streamlining reimbursement could foster co-surgery adoption, benefiting patient outcomes and efficiency.
Identifiers
What 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.