ReviewPlastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.)2026
Patient Perspective on Preoperative Simulation in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Review in Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.), 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
Introduction: Preoperative simulation technologies are increasingly utilized in plastic surgery to enhance surgical planning and patient communication. While their technical benefits have been established, the impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in particular satisfaction and perceived accuracy, remain underexplored. This systematic review evaluated the effect of preoperative simulation on patient-reported satisfaction, decision-making, and perceived accuracy in breast and facial aesthetic plastic surgery. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to April 2025 identified studies reporting PROs in adult patients undergoing breast (aesthetic or reconstructive) or facial aesthetic surgery with preoperative simulation. Data on demographics, simulation type, satisfaction, accuracy, and complications were extracted and analyzed. Results: Seventeen studies (1333 patients; 970 simulation, 363 control) met inclusion criteria. Breast surgery patients using simulation showed higher satisfaction with appearance (Breast-Q: 75.0 vs 58.1), surgical outcomes (84.9% vs 78.8%), and psychosocial well-being. Simulation patients reported higher satisfaction with the simulation experience (95.4%) and greater trust in their surgeon (95.2%), with lower complication rates (4.1% vs 41.5%). In facial surgery, simulation users demonstrated greater overall satisfaction (79.2% vs 67.3%) and improved understanding of outcomes. Perceived accuracy was higher in breast (91.0%) than facial surgery (74.1%). Across procedures, simulation enhanced shared decision-making and surgeon-patient rapport. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that preoperative simulation may enhance patient satisfaction, trust, and engagement in plastic surgery, particularly in breast procedures. However, findings are based on heterogeneous studies with diverse patient populations, simulation technologies, and outcome measures. Further prospective comparative studies using standardized PRO measures are needed to better define the role of preoperative simulation across aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery.
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.