The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Paradigm Shift in U.S. Breast Reconstruction: Part 2. The Influence of Changing Mastectomy Patterns on Reconstructive Rate and Method
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims of the current study were to (1) measure trends in the type of mastectomy performed, (2) evaluate sociodemographic/hospital characteristics of patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral mastectomies, and (3) analyze reconstruction rates and method used following different mastectomy types. METHODS: Mastectomies from 1998 to 2008 were analyzed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Mastectomies (n = 178,603) were classified as either unilateral, contralateral prophylactic, or bilateral prophylactic. Reconstructive procedures were categorized into either implant or autologous. Longitudinal trends were analyzed with Poisson regression and sociodemographic/hospital variables were analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Unilateral mastectomies decreased 2 percent per year, whereas contralateral and bilateral prophylactic mastectomies increased significantly by 15 and 12 percent per year, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (compared with unilateral mastectomy) were patients younger than 39 years, Caucasian and Hispanic race, private insurance carriers, treated in teaching hospitals, and from South and Midwest regions. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is the only group with increased reconstruction rates throughout the study period (p < 0.01). Although implant use increased for all mastectomy types, it remains greater in bilateral and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: There is increasing use of bilateral mastectomies in the United States, particularly in patients with unilateral cancer. Although implant use has increased for all mastectomy types, they are used most commonly following bilateral and contralateral prophylactic mastectomies. Changing mastectomy patterns are one factor underlying the paradigm shift away from autologous tissue to implant-based reconstruction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
MRI Evaluation of the Contralateral Breast in Women with Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer
Lehman, C. D., Gatsonis, C., Kuhl, C. K., Hendrick, R. E., Pisano, E. D., Hanna, L., Peacock, S., Smazal, S. F., Maki, D. D., Julian, T. B., et al. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa065447 · Cited by 945
A Paradigm Shift in U.S. Breast Reconstruction: Increasing Implant Rates
Albornoz, C. R., Bach, P. B., Mehrara, B. J., Disa, J. J., Pusic, A. L., McCarthy, C. M., Cordeiro, P. G., & Matros, E. (2013) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3182729cde · Cited by 897
Self-citationTuttle, T. M., Habermann, E. B., Grund, E. H., et al. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.12.3141 · Cited by 661
Clinical Management Factors Contribute to the Decision for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
King, T. A., Sakr, R., Patil, S., Gurevich, I., Stempel, M., Sampson, M., & Morrow, M. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.29.4041 · Cited by 330
Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers
Graeser, M. K., Engel, C., Rhiem, K., Gadzicki, D., Bick, U., Kast, K., Froster, U. G., Schlehe, B., Bechtold, A., Arnold, N., et al. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2008.19.9430 · Cited by 314
Yao, K., Stewart, A. K., Winchester, D. J., & Winchester, D. P. (2010) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-010-1091-3 · Cited by 241
Christian, C. K., Niland, J., Edge, S. B., Ottesen, R. A., Hughes, M. E., Theriault, R., Wilson, J., Hergrueter, C. A., & Weeks, J. C. (2006) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000197738.63512.23 · Cited by 202
Jones, N., Wilson, J. L., Kotur, L., Stephens, J. A., Farrar, W. B., & Agnese, D. M. (2009) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-009-0547-9 · Cited by 150
Reuben, B. C., Manwaring, J., & Neumayer, L. A. (2009) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.11.034 · Cited by 145
Second primary cancers of the breast: Incidence and risk factors
Hislop, T. G., Elwood, M., Coldman, A. J., Spinelli, J. J., Worth, A. J., & Ellison, L. G. (1984) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1984.12 · Cited by 123
Cited by
Current Trends in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction
Panchal, H., & Matros, E. (2017) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003941 · Cited by 462
Self-citationPostoperative outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective study
Qin, Q., Tan, Q., Lian, B., Mo, Q., Huang, Z., & Wei, C. (2018) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000009766 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Cemal, Y., Albornoz, C. R., Disa, J. J., McCarthy, C. M., Mehrara, B. J., Pusic, A. L., Cordeiro, P. G., & Matros, E.
- Venue
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 131
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 320e-326e
- ISSN
- 0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2313591387
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 29.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Paradigm Shift in U.S. Breast Reconstruction: Part 2. The Influence of Changing Mastectomy Patterns on Reconstructive Rate and Method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/prs.0b013e31827cf576
- The paper
- Cemal, Y., Albornoz, C. R., Disa, J. J., McCarthy, C. M., Mehrara, B. J., Pusic, A. L., Cordeiro, P. G., & Matros, E. (2013). A Paradigm Shift in U.S. Breast Reconstruction: Part 2. The Influence of Changing Mastectomy Patterns on Reconstructive Rate and Method. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31827cf576
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
