ArticleJPRAS open2026
Practice patterns in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: A survey of UK plastic surgeons.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction following mastectomy is an increasingly adopted alternative to the subpectoral. Despite its growing use, contemporary UK data specifically examining pre-pectoral practice among plastic surgeons remains limited. Variation also exists in surgical technique, acellular dermal matrix (ADM) use and clinical decision-making. Methods: A national cross-sectional online survey was distributed to UK consultant plastic surgeons performing breast reconstruction within the NHS. The survey captured geographical distribution, annual reconstruction volumes, frequency of prepectoral implant use, ADM preferences, implant coverage technique and factors influencing clinical decision-making. Descriptive statistics, Friedman's test and pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni adjustment were employed for statistical analysis. Results: Twenty UK plastic surgeons responded. Of these, 80% (n = 16) reported performing pre-pectoral reconstruction. Among all respondents, 75% (n = 15) reported using the pre-pectoral plane in at least 50.0% of their implant-based reconstructions. Soft tissue coverage was rated the most important factor influencing plane selection, and was ranked significantly higher than smoking status ( Conclusion: This survey identified variation in pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction practice among responding UK consultant plastic surgeons, particularly in relation to ADM selection and implant coverage technique. Porcine ADM predominated, and local availability appeared to influence product selection. Free-text responses raised relevant questions regarding changing patterns of service delivery, trainee exposure and outcome monitoring in implant-based breast reconstruction.
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.