ReviewGland surgery2026
How to approach the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap revision for optimal aesthetics.
Review in Gland surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction has become the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, offering favorable outcomes in terms of flap viability and breast aesthetics. However, optimizing both donor and recipient site cosmesis initially and during postoperative revisions remains a critical component of patient satisfaction. This review provides an overview of strategies to enhance aesthetic outcomes in DIEP flap reconstruction, emphasizing donor site contouring, revision timing, and approaches tailored to challenging patient populations. To guide a systematic and intuitive framework for designing the breast, we introduce updated terminology rooted in architectural design: Foundation, Form, and Façade. The initial DIEP flap sets the stage for all subsequent revision surgeries. Preoperatively, key considerations include detailed preoperative assessment and patient expectation management. Intraoperatively, DIEP flap design and inset must be performed with aesthetics in mind. At the donor site, strategic abdominal incision placement and utilization of cosmetic closure techniques are crucial to mimic abdominoplasty results, and methods to preserve or reconstruct the umbilicus for a natural appearance are discussed. Initial postoperative management focuses on modalities to enhance scar healing. Revisions are typically initiated 3-4 months postoperatively and involve procedures such as skin paddle excision, liposuction and fat grafting, excision of standing cones, scar release and revision, and nipple-areola complex reconstruction. Special attention is given to patients with a high or low body mass index (BMI), those undergoing unilateral reconstruction, and individuals receiving radiation therapy, outlining specific approaches to address these unique challenges. Emerging technologies are explored as adjuncts to improve outcomes in patients with limited donor tissue and/or compromised skin quality due to radiation. By integrating principles from cosmetic surgery and employing a patient-centered approach, surgeons can enhance both the aesthetic and functional results of DIEP flap breast reconstruction. This review serves as a practical guide for clinicians aiming to refine their techniques and achieve optimal outcomes in complex reconstructive scenarios.
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.