ReviewJPRAS open2026
Impact of breast reconstruction on sexual function and body image in breast cancer survivors: A systematic review.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer remains the most prevalent malignancy among women globally. As survival rates improve, the clinical focus has shifted toward the quality of life (QoL) and psychosexual survivorship. This systematic review evaluates the impact of breast reconstruction (BR) on sexual function and body image in breast cancer survivors compared to mastectomy alone. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed following PRISMA guidelines (January 2016-January 2026). Methodological quality was assessed using a mixed-methods approach: the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials, and the CASP checklist for qualitative research. Results: A total of 27 studies involving over 25,000 breast cancer survivors met the inclusion criteria. The findings indicate that women undergoing BR generally report significantly higher sexual function and body image scores compared to those undergoing mastectomy alone. Autologous reconstruction demonstrated superior long-term satisfaction and sexual well-being compared to implant-based techniques. Furthermore, breast-conserving therapy (BCT) was associated with better nipple sensation preservation compared to total mastectomy. Psychosexual outcomes were also influenced by age, body mass index (BMI), and relationship satisfaction. Notably, preoperative counseling was often reported as insufficient regarding sexual health. Conclusion: Breast reconstruction is a vital component of holistic recovery, mitigating the negative psychosexual sequelae of mastectomy. Holistic oncological care must integrate sexual health assessments. Healthcare providers, including midwives and nurses, play a pivotal role in bridging the communication gap through preoperative counseling and postoperative support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.