Advanced

A systematic review of risks and benefits with nipple-areola-reconstruction

Kristoffersen, Camilla Morken; Seland, Håvard and Hansson, Emma LU (2017) In Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery2010-01-01+01:00 51(5). p.287-295
Abstract

Background: Most women who have their breast reconstructed are offered NAC reconstruction. Nonetheless, it is unclear what scientific evidence there is for the procedure. The aims of the present systematic review were to evaluate the quality of evidence for benefits and risks with NAC reconstruction, and to examine the evidence for different techniques. Methods: Relevant databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were controlled studies comprising ≥20 patients and a case series of ≥50 patients. Included articles had to meet criteria defined in a PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome). Data extraction and collection were performed according to the QUADAS tool. The level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed... (More)

Background: Most women who have their breast reconstructed are offered NAC reconstruction. Nonetheless, it is unclear what scientific evidence there is for the procedure. The aims of the present systematic review were to evaluate the quality of evidence for benefits and risks with NAC reconstruction, and to examine the evidence for different techniques. Methods: Relevant databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were controlled studies comprising ≥20 patients and a case series of ≥50 patients. Included articles had to meet criteria defined in a PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome). Data extraction and collection were performed according to the QUADAS tool. The level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2009 guidelines, and total evidence for the different research questions was graded according to the GRADE-system. Results: A total of 362 abstracts were retrieved following the search. Of these 325 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded, leaving 37 studies to be included in the review. Among these, 36 were case series and one a small randomised non-blinded study Conclusions: The existing quality of evidence for risks and benefits of the operation is very low. It is unclear what the complication frequencies are after the reconstruction, and what effect on quality-of-life the operation has. Prospective studies of high quality are needed to evaluate the health effects and risks with NAC reconstruction.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
areola, complications, evidence based medicine, NAC, nipple, prom, reconstruction
in
Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery2010-01-01+01:00
volume
51
issue
5
pages
287 - 295
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • scopus:84997235747
  • wos:000417404700001
ISSN
2000-656X
DOI
10.1080/2000656X.2016.1251935
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
63304509-19cb-4e52-b56c-fb463574e92e
date added to LUP
2016-12-09 09:44:57
date last changed
2018-01-16 13:21:56
@article{63304509-19cb-4e52-b56c-fb463574e92e,
  abstract     = {<p>Background: Most women who have their breast reconstructed are offered NAC reconstruction. Nonetheless, it is unclear what scientific evidence there is for the procedure. The aims of the present systematic review were to evaluate the quality of evidence for benefits and risks with NAC reconstruction, and to examine the evidence for different techniques. Methods: Relevant databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were controlled studies comprising ≥20 patients and a case series of ≥50 patients. Included articles had to meet criteria defined in a PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome). Data extraction and collection were performed according to the QUADAS tool. The level of evidence of the selected articles was assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2009 guidelines, and total evidence for the different research questions was graded according to the GRADE-system. Results: A total of 362 abstracts were retrieved following the search. Of these 325 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded, leaving 37 studies to be included in the review. Among these, 36 were case series and one a small randomised non-blinded study Conclusions: The existing quality of evidence for risks and benefits of the operation is very low. It is unclear what the complication frequencies are after the reconstruction, and what effect on quality-of-life the operation has. Prospective studies of high quality are needed to evaluate the health effects and risks with NAC reconstruction.</p>},
  author       = {Kristoffersen, Camilla Morken and Seland, Håvard and Hansson, Emma},
  issn         = {2000-656X},
  keyword      = {areola,complications,evidence based medicine,NAC,nipple,prom,reconstruction},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {287--295},
  publisher    = {Taylor & Francis},
  series       = {Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery2010-01-01+01:00},
  title        = {A systematic review of risks and benefits with nipple-areola-reconstruction},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2016.1251935},
  volume       = {51},
  year         = {2017},
}