Skip to main content

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Med.
Sec. Translational Medicine
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1440139
This article is part of the Research Topic Recent Innovations in Breast Reconstructive Surgery: a continuous debate View all 5 articles

Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Various Flaps in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Provisionally accepted
Ling Li Ling Li Di Wu Di Wu Xiaohai Zhu Xiaohai Zhu *
  • Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Aim: This analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of different flap techniques for Autologous Breast Reconstruction by collecting all clinical trials employing these methods and applying a Bayesian network meta-analysis.We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant literature, focusing on outcomes such as total flap loss, donor site wound dehiscence, secondary corrections at the donor site, psychosocial well-being, satisfaction with breasts, and sexual well-being.Results: Our analysis included 10 clinical studies involving 871 patients across six flap techniques. In terms of total flap loss, the TUG flap showed the highest SUCRA value (89.6%), followed by the TMG flap (64.8%). For donor site wound dehiscence, the DIEP flap ranked highest with a SUCRA value of 60.1%, followed by the PAP flap (48.6%). In secondary corrections at the donor site, the PAP flap was the leader (95.5%), followed by the DIEP flap (52.5%) and the TMG flap (41.4%). For outcomes related to psychosocial well-being, satisfaction with breasts, and sexual well-being, the Four-flap technique consistently ranked highest (81.3%, 85.0%, 88.4%, respectively).present distinct benefits and risks. The Four-flap technique shows significant advantages in patient satisfaction, while the TUG flap excels in reducing total flap loss.

    Keywords: Autologous breast reconstruction, flap, Network meta-analysis, efficacy, Safety

    Received: 29 May 2024; Accepted: 06 Sep 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Li, Wu and Zhu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Xiaohai Zhu, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.