ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Comparison of different implant-based breast reconstruction strategies: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common postmastectomy approach, but the optimal combination of implant plane (prepectoral vs. subpectoral) and timing (immediate vs. delayed) remains controversial. Methods: We systematically searched five databases through March 2025 and included observational studies that compared immediate subpectoral breast reconstruction (ISBR), delayed subpectoral breast reconstruction, immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction (IPBR), and delayed prepectoral breast reconstruction (DPBR). We performed pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) using R (version 4.4.1). To enhance interpretability, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to assess the probability that each strategy was the optimal choice for each prespecified outcome. Results: Thirty-one retrospective studies were included. In the NMA, no statistically significant differences were found among the strategies for overall complications, hematoma, or necrosis. Compared with ISBR, IPBR was associated with lower risks of reoperation and wound dehiscence. ISBR was associated with the greatest risk of implant loss. In terms of volume, direct evidence favored DPBR over IPBR, and the SUCRA suggested that delayed strategies are advantageous. No statistically significant differences were observed across the BREAST-Q "satisfaction with breasts," "sexual well-being" scales, and pain. Conclusions: Across strategies, overall safety is broadly comparable. Prepectoral reconstruction tends to reduce the reoperation rate and capsular contracture rate, whereas subpectoral approaches have fewer constraints regarding flap quality. Delayed reconstruction better supports volume optimization and flexibility, whereas immediate approaches have lower follow-up demands and costs. Surgical planning should integrate flap quality, recovery burden, and patient goals for more individualized treatment selection.
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.