{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,23]],"date-time":"2026-08-23T15:05:52Z","timestamp":1787497552900,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":40,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,20]],"date-time":"2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1742428800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,20]],"date-time":"2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1742428800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"Universit\u00e4tsklinikum Bonn"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Breast Cancer"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,5]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Women with genetic susceptibility to breast cancer and indication for bilateral mastectomy are more likely to undergo implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) than autologous breast reconstruction (ABR), while the impact of breast size in this context is insufficiently studied. Ultimately, comparative data on IBR and different types of ABR beyond abdominal-based flaps in genetic susceptible women remain scarce. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with ABR and the effects of breast size for bilateral reconstruction in high-risk patients.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A 2.5-year retrospective study was conducted at a single institution including all genetic high-risk patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Patients were stratified into two groups based on the weight of the mastectomy specimen. Small breast sizes were defined by mastectomy weights below 400\u00a0g, and medium-to-large breasts by specimen weights above 400\u00a0g. Binary logistic regression was performed to assess variables predictive of ABR, followed by an analysis of the breast size-dependent reconstructive algorithm and its complication rates.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      We included 71 patients with BRCA1\/2 (97.2%), CHEK2 (1.4%), and PALB2 (1.4%) mutations in the study. Among those, 68 IBRs and 74 ABRs were performed. Increasing age, immediate reconstruction, and medium-to-large breast size were predictive of ABR compared to IBR (\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u20090.05).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      In the IBR-group, the majority of preoperative small breasts received subpectoral implant placements (81.0%,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.003), while prepectoral implants (53.9%,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.003) were preferred in medium-to-large breasts. In the ABR-group, the deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flap was the choice in the vast majority of cases with larger breasts (86.4%,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u20090.001), whereas the transverse myocutaneous gracilis (TMG) flap (46.7%,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u20090.001) and superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flap (20.0%,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.002) were only considered in small-breasted patients. No elevated incidence of overall complications with increasing breast size was found. However, patients with larger breasts were more likely to undergo elective revisions after IBR (\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&lt;\u20090.001) as well as ABR (\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.013). With regard to two-stage tissue expander reconstructions, high-risk patients with larger breast size revealed increased explantations (\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.043) and expander-related revisions requiring additional surgery (\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.003). The latter was significantly reduced by reduction mammoplasty prior to expander placement (\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.036).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The preoperative breast size of gene mutation carriers influences the postmastectomy reconstructive choice. TMG and SGAP flaps are suitable options for bilateral reconstruction of genetic susceptible patients with small breasts, while DIEP flaps are preferred in larger breast sizes. With increasing breast size an elevated risk for elective revisions after either IBR or ABR need to be considered. Women with medium-to-large breasts exhibit increased morbidity related to expansion and genetic high-risk patients may benefit from prior reduction mammoplasty.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s12282-025-01691-w","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,21]],"date-time":"2025-03-21T10:40:28Z","timestamp":1742553628000},"page":"582-595","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Effects of breast size on breast reconstruction in BRCA mutation carriers and genetic high-risk patients after bilateral mastectomy"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"32","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4073-7379","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Martin C.","family":"Lam","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Vendela","family":"Grufman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sonia","family":"Fertsch","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Florian","family":"Recker","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Nicole E.","family":"Speck","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jian","family":"Farhadi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,20]]},"reference":[{"key":"1691_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1291","DOI":"10.1093\/annonc\/mdv022","volume":"26","author":"S Shiovitz","year":"2015","unstructured":"Shiovitz S, Korde LA. Genetics of breast cancer: a topic in evolution. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1291\u20139.","journal-title":"Ann Oncol"},{"key":"1691_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/GOX.0000000000004277","volume":"10","author":"VJ Hu","year":"2022","unstructured":"Hu VJ, McCleary SP, Smullin CP, Rosales Morales R, Da Lio AL. Current trends in breast reconstruction following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10: e4277.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open"},{"key":"1691_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"70","DOI":"10.1007\/s12282-019-00995-y","volume":"27","author":"N Nagura","year":"2020","unstructured":"Nagura N, Hayashi N, Takei J, Yoshida A, Ochi T, Iwahira Y, et al. Breast reconstruction after risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA mutation carriers. Breast Cancer. 2020;27:70\u20136.","journal-title":"Breast Cancer"},{"key":"1691_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3817","DOI":"10.1245\/s10434-013-3040-4","volume":"20","author":"J Semple","year":"2013","unstructured":"Semple J, Metcalfe KA, Lynch HT, Kim-Sing C, Senter L, Pal T, et al. International rates of breast reconstruction after prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3817\u201322.","journal-title":"Ann Surg Oncol"},{"key":"1691_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"781","DOI":"10.1093\/ije\/dyz124","volume":"48","author":"BNS Ooi","year":"2019","unstructured":"Ooi BNS, Loh H, Ho PJ, Milne RL, Giles G, Gao C, et al. The genetic interplay between body mass index, breast size and breast cancer risk: a Mendelian randomization analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48:781\u201394.","journal-title":"Int J Epidemiol"},{"key":"1691_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"130","DOI":"10.1055\/a-1348-1481","volume":"53","author":"MC Lam","year":"2021","unstructured":"Lam MC, Vorhold J, Pech T, Wefers N, Kalff JC. Walgenbach KJ [Impact of breast dimension in one-stage augmentation mastopexies on implant selection: review of 103 consecutive breast augmentations with nanotextured silicone implants]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2021;53:130\u201343.","journal-title":"Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir"},{"key":"1691_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e129","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bjps.2015.01.009","volume":"68","author":"R Alamouti","year":"2015","unstructured":"Alamouti R, Hachach Haram N, Farhadi J. A novel grading system to assess donor site suitability in autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68:e129\u201330.","journal-title":"J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"506","DOI":"10.1097\/SAP.0b013e318263f1f8","volume":"70","author":"CS Duggal","year":"2013","unstructured":"Duggal CS, Grudziak J, Metcalfe DB, Carlson GW, Losken A. The effects of breast size in unilateral postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:506\u201312.","journal-title":"Ann Plast Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"706","DOI":"10.1111\/tbj.12888","volume":"23","author":"EH Weissler","year":"2017","unstructured":"Weissler EH, Lamelas A, Massenburg BB, Taub PJ. Preoperative breast size affects reconstruction status following mastectomy. Breast J. 2017;23:706\u201312.","journal-title":"Breast J"},{"key":"1691_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"795e","DOI":"10.1097\/PRS.0000000000004404","volume":"141","author":"JD Frey","year":"2018","unstructured":"Frey JD, Salibian AA, Karp NS, Choi M. The impact of mastectomy weight on reconstructive trends and outcomes in nipple-sparing mastectomy: progressively greater complications with larger breast size. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:795e\u2013804e.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1623","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bjps.2019.06.027","volume":"72","author":"G Zoccali","year":"2019","unstructured":"Zoccali G, Mughal M, Giwa L, Roblin P, Farhadi J. Breast reconstruction with superior gluteal artery perforator free flap: 8 years of experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72:1623\u201331.","journal-title":"J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"706e","DOI":"10.1097\/PRS.0000000000006681","volume":"145","author":"D Opsomer","year":"2020","unstructured":"Opsomer D, Vyncke T, Depypere B, Stillaert F, Blondeel P, Van Landuyt K. Lumbar flap versus the gold standard: comparison to the DIEP Flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:706e-e714.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3962","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm10163629","volume":"10","author":"L Weitgasser","year":"2021","unstructured":"Weitgasser L, Mahrhofer M, Schwaiger K, Bachleitner K, Russe E, Wechselberger G, et al. Lessons learned from 30 years of transverse Myocutaneous Gracilis flap breast reconstruction: historical appraisal and review of the present literature and 300 Cases. J Clin Med. 2021;10:3962.","journal-title":"J Clin Med"},{"key":"1691_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"363","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0038-1627449","volume":"34","author":"AC Panayi","year":"2018","unstructured":"Panayi AC, Agha RA, Sieber BA, Orgill DP. Impact of obesity on outcomes in breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34:363\u201375.","journal-title":"J Reconstr Microsurg"},{"key":"1691_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1518","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bjps.2019.05.013","volume":"72","author":"AC O'Neill","year":"2019","unstructured":"O\u2019Neill AC, Sebastiampillai S, Zhong T, Hofer SOP. Increasing body mass index increases complications but not failure rates in microvascular breast reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72:1518\u201324.","journal-title":"J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.1097\/PRS.0000000000002263","volume":"138","author":"PJ Buchanan","year":"2016","unstructured":"Buchanan PJ, Abdulghani M, Waljee JF, Kozlow JH, Sabel MS, Newman LA, et al. An analysis of the decisions made for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:29\u201340.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"640","DOI":"10.1097\/SAP.0000000000000242","volume":"76","author":"SK Ng","year":"2016","unstructured":"Ng SK, Hare RM, Kuang RJ, Smith KM, Brown BJ, Hunter-Smith DJ. Breast reconstruction post mastectomy: patient satisfaction and decision making. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:640\u20134.","journal-title":"Ann Plast Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"660","DOI":"10.1016\/j.amjsurg.2016.06.010","volume":"212","author":"KK Ludwig","year":"2016","unstructured":"Ludwig KK, Neuner J, Butler A, Geurts JL, Kong AL. Risk reduction and survival benefit of prophylactic surgery in BRCA mutation carriers, a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2016;212:660\u20139.","journal-title":"Am J Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"38","DOI":"10.1016\/j.breast.2013.10.002","volume":"23","author":"AI Hagen","year":"2014","unstructured":"Hagen AI, M\u00e6hle L, Ved\u00e5 N, Vetti HH, Stormorken A, Ludvigsen T, et al. Risk reducing mastectomy, breast reconstruction and patient satisfaction in Norwegian BRCA1\/2 mutation carriers. Breast. 2014;23:38\u201343.","journal-title":"Breast"},{"key":"1691_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1341","DOI":"10.1097\/PRS.0000000000004363","volume":"141","author":"AA Salibian","year":"2018","unstructured":"Salibian AA, Frey JD, Choi M, Karp NS. BRCA mutations in the young, high-risk female population: genetic testing, management of prophylactic therapies, and implications for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:1341\u201350.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"706","DOI":"10.1007\/s00266-021-02506-x","volume":"46","author":"K Stanek","year":"2022","unstructured":"Stanek K, Zimovjanova M, Suk P, Jonas F, Zimovjanova A, Molitor M, et al. Bilateral prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy: analysis of the risk-reducing effect in BRCA1\/2 mutation carriers. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022;46:706\u201311.","journal-title":"Aesthetic Plast Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"219","DOI":"10.1097\/PRS.0000000000003505","volume":"140","author":"CR Bailey","year":"2017","unstructured":"Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA, Simjee UF, Manahan MA, Cooney DS, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:219\u201326.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"10","DOI":"10.1111\/tbj.12542","volume":"22","author":"CH Wei","year":"2016","unstructured":"Wei CH, Scott AM, Price AN, Miller HC, Klassen AF, Jhanwar SM, et al. Psychosocial and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J. 2016;22:10\u20137.","journal-title":"Breast J"},{"key":"1691_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"135","DOI":"10.1002\/bjs5.50119","volume":"3","author":"RA Agha","year":"2019","unstructured":"Agha RA, Al Omran Y, Wellstead G, Sagoo H, Barai I, Rajmohan S, et al. Systematic review of therapeutic nipple-sparing versus skin-sparing mastectomy. BJS Open. 2019;3:135\u201345.","journal-title":"BJS Open"},{"key":"1691_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"535","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.028","volume":"230","author":"JA Margenthaler","year":"2020","unstructured":"Margenthaler JA, Gan C, Yan Y, Cyr AE, Tenenbaum M, Hook D, et al. Oncologic safety and outcomes in patients undergoing nipple-sparing Mastectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230:535\u201341.","journal-title":"J Am Coll Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1703","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.22.01239","volume":"41","author":"S Yadav","year":"2023","unstructured":"Yadav S, Boddicker NJ, Na J, Polley EC, Hu C, Hart SN, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk among carriers of germline pathogenic variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:1703\u201313.","journal-title":"J Clin Oncol"},{"key":"1691_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"421","DOI":"10.1007\/s10549-020-05699-y","volume":"182","author":"D Cragun","year":"2020","unstructured":"Cragun D, Weidner A, Tezak A, Clouse K, Pal T. Cancer risk management among female BRCA1\/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;182:421\u20138.","journal-title":"Breast Cancer Res Treat"},{"key":"1691_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"514","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijrobp.2019.11.008","volume":"106","author":"GE Naoum","year":"2020","unstructured":"Naoum GE, Salama L, Niemierko A, Vieira BL, Belkacemi Y, Colwell AS, et al. Single stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction has lower complication rates than tissue expander and implant and comparable rates to autologous reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;106:514\u201324.","journal-title":"Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys"},{"key":"1691_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"435","DOI":"10.1007\/s12282-019-01036-4","volume":"27","author":"FCJ Reinders","year":"2020","unstructured":"Reinders FCJ, Young-Afat DA, Batenburg MCT, Bruekers SE, van Amerongen EA, Macar\u00e9 van Maurik JFM, et al. Higher reconstruction failure and less patient-reported satisfaction after post mastectomy radiotherapy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction compared to immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Breast Cancer. 2020;27:435\u201344.","journal-title":"Breast Cancer"},{"key":"1691_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"469","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bjps.2019.11.047","volume":"73","author":"T Tondu","year":"2020","unstructured":"Tondu T, Hubens G, Tjalma WA, Thiessen FE, Vrints I, Van Thielen J, et al. Breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy in the large and\/or ptotic breast: a systematic review of indications, techniques, and outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73:469\u201385.","journal-title":"J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/GOX.0000000000000038","volume":"2","author":"P Chirappapha","year":"2014","unstructured":"Chirappapha P, Petit JY, Rietjens M, De Lorenzi F, Garusi C, Martella S, et al. Nipple sparing mastectomy: does breast morphological factor related to necrotic complications? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2014;2: e99.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open"},{"key":"1691_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"523","DOI":"10.1007\/s10549-018-4937-1","volume":"172","author":"WP Weber","year":"2018","unstructured":"Weber WP, Haug M, Kurzeder C, Bjelic-Radisic V, Koller R, Reitsamer R, et al. Oncoplastic breast consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;172:523\u201337.","journal-title":"Breast Cancer Res Treat"},{"key":"1691_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S205","DOI":"10.1097\/SAP.0000000000003188","volume":"88","author":"LP Poveromo","year":"2022","unstructured":"Poveromo LP, Franck P, Ellison A, Janhofer DE, Asadourian PA, Otterburn DM. Prepectoral breast reconstruction without the use of acellular dermal matrix: a 3-year review. Ann Plast Surg. 2022;88:S205\u20138.","journal-title":"Ann Plast Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"30","DOI":"10.1097\/PRS.0000000000002845","volume":"139","author":"AH Salibian","year":"2017","unstructured":"Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged suprapectoral expander\/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:30\u20139.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR35","first-page":"281e","volume":"153","author":"AA Talwar","year":"2024","unstructured":"Talwar AA, Lanni MA, Ryan IA, Kodali P, Bernstein E, McAuliffe PB, et al. Prepectoral versus submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction: a matched-pair comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;153:281e-e290.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"43","DOI":"10.21037\/gs.2018.09.04","volume":"8","author":"MY Nahabedian","year":"2019","unstructured":"Nahabedian MY, Jacobson SR. Two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019;8:43\u201352.","journal-title":"Gland Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"579","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0041-1742240","volume":"38","author":"E Pittelkow","year":"2022","unstructured":"Pittelkow E, DeBrock W, Christopher L, Mercho R, Suh LJ, Fisher CS, et al. Advantages of the delayed-immediate microsurgical breast reconstruction: extending the choice. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2022;38:579\u201384.","journal-title":"J Reconstr Microsurg"},{"key":"1691_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1023","DOI":"10.1097\/PRS.0000000000006121","volume":"144","author":"AA Salibian","year":"2019","unstructured":"Salibian AA, Frey JD, Karp NS, Choi M. Does staged breast reduction before nipple-sparing mastectomy decrease complications? A matched cohort study between staged and nonstaged techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144:1023\u201332.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1173","DOI":"10.1007\/s00266-019-01463-w","volume":"43","author":"MC Lam","year":"2019","unstructured":"Lam MC, Walgenbach-Br\u00fcnagel G, Pryalukhin A, Vorhold J, Pech T, Kalff JC, et al. Management of capsular contracture in cases of silicone gel breast implant rupture with use of pulse lavage and open capsulotomy. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019;43:1173\u201385.","journal-title":"Aesthetic Plast Surg"},{"key":"1691_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"303","DOI":"10.1097\/PRS.0000000000006422","volume":"145","author":"V Lemaine","year":"2020","unstructured":"Lemaine V, Schilz SR, Van Houten HK, Zhu L, Habermann EB, Boughey JC. Autologous breast reconstruction versus implant-based reconstruction: how do long-term costs and health care use compare? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:303\u201311.","journal-title":"Plast Reconstr Surg"}],"container-title":["Breast Cancer"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s12282-025-01691-w.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s12282-025-01691-w\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s12282-025-01691-w.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,12]],"date-time":"2025-04-12T05:41:17Z","timestamp":1744436477000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s12282-025-01691-w"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,20]]},"references-count":40,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,5]]}},"alternative-id":["1691"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12282-025-01691-w","relation":{},"ISSN":["1340-6868","1880-4233"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1340-6868","type":"print"},{"value":"1880-4233","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,20]]},"assertion":[{"value":"27 August 2024","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"10 March 2025","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"20 March 2025","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this article.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflict of interest"}},{"value":"All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and\/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.\n                      Patient consent.\n                      For this type of study, formal consent is not required.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethical approval"}}]}}