ArticleJPRAS open2026
Comparison of methods for inframammary fold fixation of deep inferior epigastric perforator flap 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
Background: Various methods for inframammary fold (IMF) fixation in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction have been reported. This quantitative study focused on the comparison of IMF fixation results between immediate one-stage (internal fixation), delayed one-stage (de-epithelialized method), and two-stage (capsule fixation) reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective study of 34 patients who underwent unilateral DIEP flap reconstruction was conducted. The IMF height, grouped by reconstruction methods, was measured from the standardized clinical photographs >6 months after the DIEP flap reconstruction (post-DIEP) and >6 months after the flap revision surgery (final), and compared with the healthy side. Results: In the order of immediate one-stage, delayed one-stage, and two-stage reconstruction, respectively, the average (± standard deviation) post-DIEP IMF heights were -1.60 ± 0.65 cm, -0.19 ± 1.16 cm, and -1.40 ± 1.11 cm, and the average final IMF heights were -1.20 ± 0.44 cm, -0.19 ± 0.52 cm, and -0.68 ± 0.98 cm. Conclusion: After DIEP flap breast reconstruction, the IMF of the reconstructed side tends to be lower than the healthy side. The de-epithelialized method used in delayed one-stage reconstruction showed relatively good IMF fixation after DIEP flap reconstruction compared with other reconstruction methods. By performing additional IMF procedures during flap revision surgery, the average IMF height ranged from -1.2 to -0.19 cm compared with the healthy side.
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.