ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Langer's Axillary Arch: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Its Prevalence and Clinical Relevance.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Langer's axillary arch, also known as the axillopectoral muscle, represents a relatively uncommon anatomical variation of the axillary region. Although often asymptomatic, its presence may have important implications in surgical procedures involving the axilla, particularly during breast surgery, axillary lymph node dissection, and reconstructive procedures. Despite numerous anatomical and surgical reports describing this variation, the true prevalence of Langer's axillary arch remains uncertain due to variability in study design and detection methods.
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the reported prevalence of Langer's axillary arch and to assess methodological variability among anatomical and surgical studies.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies reporting original data on the presence or prevalence of Langer's axillary arch in cadaveric or surgical populations were included. Data extraction included study characteristics, sample size, number of detected axillary arches, and reported prevalence. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled prevalence and to evaluate heterogeneity between studies.
resultsThe analysis included studies comprising both cadaveric anatomical investigations and surgical series. Considerable variability in reported prevalence was observed across studies. Cadaveric studies generally reported higher prevalence rates compared with surgical series, reflecting differences in detection methods. Meta-analytic synthesis demonstrated that Langer's axillary arch represents a relatively uncommon but clinically relevant anatomical variation.
conclusionsLanger's axillary arch should be recognized as an important anatomical variant of the axillary region. Awareness of this variation is essential for surgeons performing axillary procedures, as its presence may influence surgical exposure and lymph node identification. Further large-scale anatomical and clinical studies are needed to better define its prevalence and surgical implications.
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.