ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026
Revisiting Total Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: Technical Refinements for Improved Outcomes.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has gained increasing popularity, it is not suitable for all patients. Subpectoral reconstruction remains necessary in selected cases, yet traditional techniques are limited by animation deformity and restricted lower-pole expansion. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, reproducibility, and clinical outcomes of a refined, mesh-free total subpectoral reconstruction technique. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 119 patients (181 breasts) undergoing immediate implant-based reconstruction using a standardized subpectoral technique. Key anatomical structures-including the inframammary ligament, serratus anterior fascia, and intercostal perforators-were preserved. Controlled fascial releases and limited superior dissection were employed to optimize implant positioning and lower-pole expansion. Outcomes included complication rates, revision surgery, and BREAST-Q scores. Results: The mean follow-up was 28.1 months. Minor complications occurred in 28.6% of cases, whereas major complications were observed in 6.7%. Hematoma, infection, and implant-related complications remained within the lower range of reported literature values. Revision surgery was required in 7.6% of patients, primarily because of contour irregularities, all successfully managed with single-stage correction. Among 100 patients completing BREAST-Q assessment, the mean score was 76.6 ± 15.1. Conclusions: This refined mesh-free total subpectoral technique provides stable implant positioning, improved lower-pole projection, and reduced animation deformity. In appropriately selected patients, it represents a safe, reproducible, and cost-effective alternative to conventional submuscular approaches. Level of Evidence 4 Therapeutic: For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
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.