Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42077662›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2026

Comparative analysis of prepectoral and subpectoral standalone placement of Microthane

Ehsanur Rahman, Hamed Hajiesmaeili, Rebecca Lefroy, Pilar Matey

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ehsanur RahmanThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton WV100QP, UK.
Hamed HajiesmaeiliThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton WV100QP, UK.
Rebecca LefroyThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton WV100QP, UK.
Pilar MateyThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton WV100QP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Breast reconstruction following mastectomy is a critical aspect of oncologic care, and the choice of implant placement significantly impacts clinical outcomes. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of prepectoral vs subpectoral positioning of polyurethane-coated Microthane Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 93 consecutive patients (117 implants) treated between 2013 and 2019. The study analyzed outcomes over a median follow-up of 3.95 years, with a range reaching 7.2 years. Using statistical methods, demographic factors and complication rates, including the impact of radiotherapy, were compared. Results: Prepectoral placement exhibited a lower overall complication rate than subpectoral placement with a high statistical significance: Conclusion: Prepectoral positioning of Microthane

Indexed as

Implant-based breast reconstructionPolyurethane-coated breast implantsPre- and post-surgery radiotherapy on polyurethane implantsPrepectoral breast implant positioningStandalone polyurethane implants in prepectoral positionSubpectoral breast implant positioning

Identifiers

PMID42077662
PMCPMC13133667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.