ReviewCureus2026
Lifting the Standards: A Systematic Review of Aesthetic Scarless Breast Surgery.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scarless breast surgery techniques, such as radiofrequency-assisted mastopexy, transaxillary and transumbilical augmentation, and liposuction-based reductions, have gained popularity for delivering aesthetic results while minimizing visible scarring. However, evidence on outcomes and complication rates across techniques remains variable. A systematic review of 11 studies with 1,517 patients undergoing scarless aesthetic breast procedures was conducted. Data on surgical techniques, patient satisfaction, anatomical changes, and complications were extracted. Outcomes were assessed through photographic reviews, global aesthetic scales, and objective measurements of nipple and areolar position. The average patient age was 34 years. Radiofrequency-assisted mastopexy reported a mean nipple lift of 1.2 cm, while the "Compass Rose" suture technique achieved an average areolar width reduction of 11 mm. Transaxillary and transumbilical augmentations demonstrated patient satisfaction rates of ≥90%. Reported complications were generally low and included hematoma (n=2), capsular contracture (n=2), implant malposition (n=1), and minor wound-related issues. Overall, complication rates were similar to or lower than those associated with traditional augmentation and mastopexy techniques. Scarless aesthetic breast procedures provide high patient satisfaction and measurable improvements in breast contour and nipple position, with complication rates comparable to conventional approaches. Future research should focus on standardized reporting and long-term outcomes to better define the efficacy and safety of these minimally invasive techniques.
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.