SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Ischemic Complications and Salvage Following Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIschemic complications following breast reconstruction remain a significant cause of morbidity. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is increasingly used as an adjunctive modality to enhance perfusion and salvage threatened reconstructions, yet its therapeutic benefit in this setting remains unclear. This study aims to compare ischemic complications following reconstructive breast surgery in patients receiving HBOT versus non-HBOT therapies.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2025. Studies evaluating HBOT for postoperative ischemic complications following breast reconstruction were included. Comparative outcomes were synthesized using random-effects models, and single-arm outcomes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis of proportions. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE.
resultsOf the 1721 records, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. HBOT did not significantly reduce hematoma (OR 2.92; 95% CI [0.47-18.06]; p = 0.25), skin necrosis (OR 4.72; 95% CI [0.13-172.44]; p = 0.40), or reoperation (OR 2.42; 95% CI [0.89-6.55]; p = 0.08). Single-arm HBOT cohorts demonstrated pooled rates of seroma (16.1%), SSI (18.8%), return to the operating room for debridement (12.6%), and explantation (21.6%).
conclusionsAcross seven non-randomized studies, comparative evidence for HBOT versus standard care in ischemic complications after breast reconstruction is insufficient and inconclusive to determine whether HBOT reduces ischemic complications. HBOT may be considered selectively within protocolized multidisciplinary pathways, but stronger prospective comparative studies with standardized indications and outcome definitions are needed to clarify its role. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42310081What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.