ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Inframammary Fold Reconstruction Techniques: A Scoping Review.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The inframammary fold (IMF) is a crucial anatomical structure that influences breast aesthetics after reconstruction. However, mastectomy often compromises the IMF, necessitating effective reconstruction techniques. Current approaches vary, and no consensus exists regarding the optimal method. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed and Embase. Twenty-five eligible studies describing IMF reconstruction were included. Surgical techniques were categorized into open (direct and indirect access), closed, and other approaches. Data were analyzed for techniques, outcomes, and complications. Results: Open approaches offered superior visualization and precise IMF anchoring but required larger incisions and carried higher complication risks. Direct access typically used de-epithelialized dermal flaps following the IMF incision, whereas indirect access relied on existing scars to anchor the capsular, superficial fascia, dermis, or combinations thereof. Closed techniques reduced invasiveness but limited visualization, complicating fixation. One study evaluated liposuction to enhance skin-fascia adherence, demonstrating its potential benefit. Suture methods varied widely, with some studies describing barbed sutures; however, skin-fascia adherence seemed more important than suture choice for durable IMF reconstruction. Recurrence of IMF displacement was common across all techniques. Conclusions: No single IMF reconstruction technique has been established as superior. The predominance of implant-based reports and the absence of comparative or prospective studies limit definitive conclusions. Future prospective research should compare long-term outcomes across technique categories and investigate adjunctive strategies, such as liposuction, for enhancing IMF stability.
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.