ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Prepectoral versus Retropectoral Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction after Skin-reducing Mastectomy: 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Skin-reducing mastectomy (SRM) enables single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) in women with large or ptotic breasts. The optimal implant plane after SRM remains debated. Retropectoral placement provides reliable coverage but is associated with pain and animation deformity, whereas prepectoral placement avoids muscle dissection but requires well-vascularized and thicker skin flaps. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: 1019974). Databases were searched in April 2025. Eligible studies reported outcomes of SRM followed by single-stage prepectoral or retropectoral IBBR. The primary outcome was breast complications; secondary outcomes included aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A random-effects proportional meta-analysis was performed. Results: Twenty-six studies comprising 863 patients and 1106 reconstructions were included (432 prepectoral and 674 retropectoral). The pooled complication rate was similar between prepectoral and retropectoral reconstruction (20% versus 25%), with no statistically significant differences in any specific complication, including implant loss, skin necrosis, nipple-areolar complex necrosis, wound dehiscence, superficial epidermolysis, capsular contracture, and rippling. PROs favored prepectoral placement, with consistently high BREAST-Q scores across psychosocial, sexual, and satisfaction domains. Conclusions: In women with large ptotic breasts undergoing SRM with single-stage IBBR, prepectoral and retropectoral reconstruction show comparable overall safety. Given the favorable PRO trends, prepectoral placement may be preferred, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.
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.