ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Round Versus Anatomical Implants in Breast Reconstruction: 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly used technique for oncological breast reconstruction. Implants vary in size, composition, texture, and shape. Numerous studies have attempted to determine whether the postoperative outcomes differ based on the shape of the implant, the 2 most common being round and anatomical implants. This systematic review and comparative meta-analysis evaluates postoperative outcomes and aesthetic satisfaction following IBBR with round or anatomical implants. Methods: A systematic review of the literature and comparative meta-analysis were performed to assess the differences in complication rates, patient-reported outcomes, and aesthetic satisfaction between patients undergoing IBBR with round or anatomical implants. Only comparative studies reporting on postoperative complications or patient-reported outcomes following IBBR were included. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Nine studies were included, representing 2535 patients, with 1578 patients and 957 patients in the round and anatomical implant groups, respectively. No difference was observed in the overall complication rate between the round and anatomical implant groups (odds ratio = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.14-1.48; Conclusions: In IBBR, round or anatomical implants have similar complication rates and aesthetic results. The choice of implant type should therefore be made through shared decision-making, guided by the surgeon's experience, the patient's morphology, and personal preference to achieve optimal results.
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.