ArticleGland surgery2026
Utility of intercostal artery perforator flap in granulomatous lobular mastitis: a single-center retrospective study.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Determining a procedure to fill operation defects, maintain breast shape, and conceal surgical incisions remains a challenge for breast surgeons in treating granulomatous lobular mastitis (GLM). The intercostal artery perforator (ICAP) flap is a volume replacement technique in breast-conserving surgery. This study aimed to describe the feasibility, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of extended mass resection and breast defect reconstruction with an ICAP flap in selected GLM patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 108 GLM patients treated surgically between January 2022 and May 2024 at our center. Patients were divided into three groups according to the actual surgical strategy received in routine clinical practice. The no reconstruction group was considered the main clinical comparator for the flap reconstruction group, whereas the no resection group was retained as an exploratory real-world reference group. Results: A total of 43 patients underwent extended mass resection and defect reconstruction with an ICAP flap (flap reconstruction group), 37 patients underwent extended mass resection without breast defect reconstruction (no reconstruction group), and 28 patients continued with abscess drainage or fistula removal without mass resection (no resection group). The flap reconstruction group showed longer surgery times and drainage removal times, as well as more blood loss and drainage volumes, than the other groups (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications among the three groups (P>0.05). Compared with the no reconstruction group, the flap reconstruction group showed better patient-reported cosmetic change and higher satisfaction scores (P<0.001). No recurrence was observed in the flap reconstruction group during 1-year follow-up; however, this exploratory finding should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions: Extended mass resection and breast defect reconstruction with an ICAP flap appears to be a feasible and safe option for selected GLM patients requiring resection, with potential advantages in maintaining breast appearance and improving patient-reported satisfaction. The observed recurrence difference should be interpreted cautiously because of the retrospective design, limited sample size, and short follow-up.
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.