Comparing Latissimus Dorsi Flap to Implant in Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review
Dang EN., Saleh ME., Elsayed AAR., Basson MD.
Systematic Review, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Aesthetic Plast Surg (2026)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41162796
- PMCID
- PMC13009031
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00266-025-05335-4
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Background Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and often necessitates a mastectomy. Many patients choose breast reconstruction (BR) to restore appearance and self-image. Common techniques include implant-based and autologous reconstruction, such as with the latissimus dorsi flap (LDF). This systematic review compares LDF and implant-based reconstructions to guide clinical decision-making and improve patient care. Methods This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and VHL databases. Studies were included if they involved breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy followed by either LDF or implant-based reconstruction. Study quality was assessed using STROBE guidelines. Results Out of 785 articles initially identified, 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. LDF and implant-based reconstructions had distinct indications, complication profiles, and long-term outcomes, with LDF reconstruction linked to lower revision rates, more natural aesthetic outcomes, and higher patient satisfaction despite donor site morbidity and more postoperative complications. Implant-based reconstruction had higher rates of revision and lower patient satisfaction, but is less invasive and associated with fewer postoperative complications. Conclusion LDF reconstruction is associated with lower revision rates
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.