ReviewGland surgery2026
The hybrid implant-flap breast reconstruction-pearls and pitfalls: a narrative review.
Review in Gland surgery, 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 and Objective: Autologous free tissue transfer is considered to be the gold-standard for breast reconstruction. The abdomen, thighs, buttocks and other donor sites have been well described in the literature. In slender patients with larger breasts who desire autologous reconstruction, breast asymmetry or insufficient volume may compromise the aesthetic or desired outcome. In these situations, hybrid reconstruction, in which the flap is combined with an implant, can provide desirable outcomes. The aim of this study to review of the available evidence and help guide clinical decision-making and optimization of outcomes. Methods: A review of the literature using keywords was performed by query of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria included retrospective and prospective studies that used free flaps for breast reconstruction (abdominal and other sources), studies that categorized their data into immediate and staged placement of implant, case series, case reports and review of literature. Studies from the last 30 years were included [1995-2025]. Studies that did not analyzed the use of free flaps combined with implants for breast reconstruction were not included. Key Content and Findings: Seventeen studies were identified. Of these 13 reported on patients who had free flaps augmented with an implant for breast reconstruction. Key findings included: A total of 359 patients and 598 breasts were reviewed. The majority of the of the free flaps (590) were abdominally based. The timing for implant placement was roughly evenly split between delayed (52%, 300 breasts) and immediate (48%, 298 breasts). Tissue expanders were used with the flap prior to the silicone implant in a minority of cases-11% of cases. Silicone implants were used 92% of cases. Mesh support (acellular dermal matrix or synthetic) was used in approximately 57% of cases. Conclusions: Performing hybrid flap-implant breast reconstruction has been established as a safe and reliable approach on patients with larger breasts who desire autologous reconstruction and have paucity of autologous donor tissue.
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.