New to MyHealth?
Manage Your Care From Anywhere.
Access your health information from any device with MyHealth. You can message your clinic, view lab results, schedule an appointment, and pay your bill.
ALREADY HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
NEED MORE DETAILS?
MyHealth for Mobile
Tactile Sensory Recovery in Neurotized Versus Non-Neurotized Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Tactile Sensory Recovery in Neurotized Versus Non-Neurotized Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Microsurgery Aristizábal, A., Herrera, H., Escandón, J. M., Ciudad, P., Del Corral, G., Nazerali, R., Mascaro, A., Manrique, O. J. 2025; 45 (5): e70096Abstract
Tactile sensory recovery in autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) has been shown to prevent injuries and improve quality of life. However, the studies comparing neurotized versus non-neurotized outcomes are still controversial due to methodological heterogeneity. This review uses consistent and objective outcomes to evaluate the current evidence's qualitative characteristics and quantitative tactile sensory recovery.We conducted a systematic electronic literature search from database inception through 10 February 2024, of the following databases: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CINAHL to identify all studies reporting outcomes of tactile sensory recovery using the Semmes-Weinstein Measuring scale in free-flap ABR comparing neurotization versus non-neurotization. The SWM scale score, demographic characteristics, and surgical features were extracted from each study. Due to the data heterogeneity within the studies, we transformed the data into means and pooled the qualitative information.We identified 264 articles. After thorough screening, 12 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Finally, 7 were quantitatively analyzed with a total of 251 breasts that underwent ABR with free flap neurotization and 244 breasts without neurotization. This revealed a mean SWM score difference of -0.67 and a significant p-value
View details for DOI 10.1002/micr.70096
View details for PubMedID 40682250