ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Comparative Outcomes of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap and Breast Implants in Breast Reconstruction Postmastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy can restore body image and improve quality of life. Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) offers shorter operative times without donor-site morbidity, whereas deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps may provide more natural outcomes. This systematic review compares outcomes of DIEP flaps and IBR. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar was performed in June 2025 (PROSPERO ID: CRD420251081966) for studies comparing DIEP flaps and IBR after mastectomy. Studies reported BREAST-Q scores and complications, reconstruction failures, and revision procedures. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for nonrandomized studies, with evidence graded using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations. Pooled mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: Twenty studies including 3106 patients (1068 DIEP and 2038 IBR) were analyzed. DIEP flap group showed higher overall BREAST-Q scores (mean difference +9.28; Conclusions: DIEP flap reconstruction offers better patient satisfaction and lower failure rates than IBR, without increased complications. These benefits must be weighed against operative complexity and resource demands. High-quality multicenter trials with standardized outcome reporting are needed for patient-centered decisions.
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.