ReviewCancers2026
Sensory Outcomes and Neurotization Techniques Following Mastectomies: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nipple-areolar complex neurotization in implant-based breast reconstruction: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesWith increasing survival rates following oncologic mastectomies, loss of breast sensation can negatively impact a patient's quality of life.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched in April 2025 for studies reporting sensory outcomes after neurotized breast reconstruction. Eligible studies included patients undergoing autologous or implant-based reconstruction with any neurotization technique. Forty studies were included, and outcomes involved objective sensory testing (e.g., Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments, pressure-specified sensory devices, and thermal thresholds) and patient-reported quality of life (e.g., BREAST-Q).
resultsNeurotization consistently accelerated and improved recovery of tactile, thermal, and protective sensation compared with non-neurotized controls, particularly in DIEP and TRAM flaps. Direct coaptation was most frequently employed, while nerve allografts, conduits, and autologous grafts offered effective alternatives when direct repair was not feasible. Implant-based reconstructions using allografts also demonstrated significant improvements in the nipple-areola complex and breast skin sensation. Across studies, earlier and more uniform sensory return was reported, with improved sensation often associated with high patient satisfaction and quality of life.
conclusionsThe preponderance of observational evidence suggests that nerve coaptation, whether by direct suture, conduit, allograft, or autograft, represents a promising adjunct to breast reconstruction in both autologous and implant-based reconstruction. However, many studies were retrospective in design, had small sample sizes, and lacked randomization.
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.