ArticleJPRAS open2026
Abdominal-based vs. alternative flaps: Surgical outcomes and quality of life following different techniques of autologous breast reconstruction.
Article in JPRAS 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abdominal-based flaps are considered the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction (ABR). With the increasing number of women undergoing mastectomy, however, alternative free flaps from other regions have emerged as valuable alternatives when patients do not qualify for an abdominal-based flap. This single-center cohort study evaluates objective and subjective outcomes in patients who underwent abdominal-based versus alternative flaps for breast reconstruction. Patients who underwent ABR between 2010 and 2022 were included. Baseline patient characteristics and data on oncological and surgical treatment were collected. Since 2018, all patients received the validated BREAST-Q questionnaire evaluating satisfaction and quality of life preoperatively and at regular intervals following surgery. Multinomial logistic regression evaluated the probability of flap complications based on the type of flap. We also evaluated quality of life between abdominal-based and alternative flaps. Of the 183 patients were included in this study (146 abdominal-based and 37 alternative flaps). We could not ascertain a relationship between type of flap and flap complications. More donor-site complications and more secondary aesthetic corrective surgery were noted in patients who underwent abdominal-based flaps. Our results did not show any differences between patients who underwent abdominal-based compared to alternative flap types for various satisfaction domains of the BREAST-Q. Abdominal-based and alternative free flap types are both viable treatment options in ABR and several variables need to be considered when selecting the appropriate flap for the right patient. Careful flap selection and the shared decision-making process between patient and surgeon reflect high patient-satisfaction and an optimal aesthetic result.
Indexed as
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.