Introduction and Purpose: Breast reconstruction is an active area of plastic surgery research. Citation analysis allows for quantitative analysis of publications, with more citations presumed to indicate greater influence. We performed citation analysis to evaluate the most cited papers on breast reconstruction between 2000 to 2010 to identify contemporary research trends. Methods: The SCI-EXPANDED database was used to identify the 50 most cited papers. Data points included authorship, publication year, publication journal, study design, level of evidence, number of surgeons/institutions, center of surgery, primary outcome assessed, implant/flap/acellular dermal matrix/fat graft, acellular dermal matrix brand and use with implants/flaps, fat graft use with implants/flaps, unilateral/bilateral, one-/two-stage, immediate/delayed, number of patients/procedures, complications. Descriptive analysis of trends was performed based on results. Results: 20% of papers were published in 2006, 16% in 2007 and 12% in both 2004/2009. 66% were published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The majority were retrospective or case series, and of Level III or IV evidence. The one Level I study was a prospective multicenter trial. 21 and 7 papers discussed procedures by single/multiple surgeons, respectively. Results from single/multiple centers were discussed in 18 and 6 papers, respectively. 30 papers discussed implant-based reconstruction, 22 papers flap-based (19 microsurgical), 15 papers acellular dermal matrix, and five papers fat grafting. The primary focus in the majority was complications or outcomes. Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrates continually evolving techniques in breast reconstruction. However, there is notable lack of high quality evidence to guide surgical decision-making in the face of increasing surgical options.
Introduction and Purpose: Breast reconstruction is an active area of plastic surgery research. Citation analysis allows for quantitative analysis of publications, with more citations presumed to indicate greater influence. We performed citation analysis to evaluate the most cited papers on breast reconstruction between 2000 to 2010 to identify contemporary research trends. Methods: The SCI-EXPANDED database was used to identify the 50 most cited papers. Data points included authorship, publication year, publication journal, study design, level of evidence, number of surgeons/institutions, center of surgery, primary outcome assessed, implant/flap/acellular dermal matrix/fat graft, acellular dermal matrix brand and use with implants/flaps, fat graft use with implants/flaps, unilateral/bilateral, one-/two-stage, immediate/delayed, number of patients/procedures, complications. Descriptive analysis of trends was performed based on results. Results: 20% of papers were published in 2006, 16% in 2007 and 12% in both 2004/2009. 66% were published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The majority were retrospective or case series, and of Level III or IV evidence. The one Level I study was a prospective multicenter trial. 21 and 7 papers discussed procedures by single/multiple surgeons, respectively. Results from single/multiple centers were discussed in 18 and 6 papers, respectively. 30 papers discussed implant-based reconstruction, 22 papers flap-based (19 microsurgical), 15 papers acellular dermal matrix, and five papers fat grafting. The primary focus in the majority was complications or outcomes. Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrates continually evolving techniques in breast reconstruction. However, there is notable lack of high quality evidence to guide surgical decision-making in the face of increasing surgical options.
Authors: James E McCarthy; Abhishek Chatterjee; T Gregory McKelvey; Elisabeth M G Jantzen; Carolyn L Kerrigan Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.730