Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41614595›Full record

SynthesisMicrosurgery2026

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Following Massive Weight Loss: An Updated Systematic Review and Identification of Research Gaps.

Anna Paganini, Jonas Löfstrand, Nushin Mirzaei, Emma Hansson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Microsurgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anna PaganiniDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7043-0063
Jonas LöfstrandDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Nushin MirzaeiDepartment of Surgery, Sahlgrenska Centre for Cancer Research, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1434-8448
Emma HanssonDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3218-0881

Funding

Federal Government under the ALF agreement ALFGBG-1005048Swedish Cancer Society 21 0279 SCIA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs bariatric surgery becomes increasingly common, reconstructive surgeons are encountering more massive weight loss (MWL) patients requiring breast reconstruction. MWL alters breast anatomy, tissue characteristics, and healing capacity, potentially impacting reconstructive outcomes.

objectiveTo update and evaluate the evidence on how MWL affects complication and revision rates, flap-relevant anatomy, and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) following postmastectomy breast reconstruction. In addition, research gaps were identified.

methodsThis systematic review updated a previous review and followed PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included cohort studies and case series of postmastectomy breast reconstruction after MWL. Data extraction and appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers, with evidence quality rated using the GRADE system.

resultsFifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including three case-control studies and twelve case series, reporting outcomes for 102 patients after massive weight loss (MWL). Most reconstructions used abdominally based free flaps, with few MWL-specific modifications. MWL patients experienced significantly higher rates of delayed wound healing, surgical-site infection, fat necrosis, and need for revision compared with controls, while total flap loss rates were similar. Evidence on implant-based reconstruction, vascular anatomy, and PROMs was scarce. The overall certainty of evidence was very low (GRADE ⊕⊝⊝⊝).

conclusionBreast reconstruction after MWL is associated with increased wound-healing complications and revision rates, though patient satisfaction appears acceptable. Evidence remains limited by small, heterogeneous studies and a lack of controlled or prospective data. Future research should address optimal reconstructive techniques, timing, and patient selection, including the identification of modifiable risk factors and the use of PROMs to guide evidence-based care.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryBreast NeoplasmsMammaplastyMastectomyWeight LossFemaleHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationWound Healingbreast cancerbreast reconstructionmassive weight losspost‐bariatric reconstructionrisk factors for complications

Identifiers

PMID41614595
PMCPMC12856973

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.