RESUMO
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Surgical treatments, including mastectomy and subsequent breast reconstruction, are critical components of breast cancer management. This systematic review compares the outcomes of flap versus implant reconstruction post-mastectomy, focusing on aesthetic differences, pain, recovery, and psychological adaptation. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect databases. Inclusion criteria targeted studies comparing aesthetic outcomes, pain, recovery costs, duration, and psychological adaptation between flap and implant breast reconstructions. We excluded non-English and non-Spanish studies, case reports, and those without full-text availability. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). From an initial pool of 25,881 articles, 16 high-quality studies involving 14,196 participants were selected for synthesis. Flap reconstruction was associated with higher patient satisfaction regarding aesthetic outcomes and psychological well-being but also had higher complication rates, including infections and wound dehiscence. Implant reconstruction showed fewer complications but did not achieve the same level of patient satisfaction. Flap reconstruction, despite its higher complication rates, tends to provide superior aesthetic and psychological outcomes compared to implant reconstruction. These findings highlight the importance of personalized treatment plans considering individual patient needs and preferences. Future research should focus on long-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and standardized outcome measures to further delineate the comparative effectiveness of these reconstruction techniques. Personalized care and ongoing research are essential to improving the quality of life for breast cancer survivors undergoing reconstruction.
RESUMO
This case report aims to delineate the challenges and management strategies for a patient with bilateral mutilated hands within a secondary care level in Mexico, contributing to medical literature and potentially guiding future patient care. Mutilated hands represent a significant surgical and rehabilitative challenge due to the profound structural damage they cause, leading to considerable functional impairment and psychological distress. The complexity of these injuries necessitates a multidisciplinary approach, particularly in resource-constrained settings. We present a case of a 45-year-old male with no prior significant medical history who sustained bilateral mutilated hands from an industrial accident involving hot rollers. The patient underwent extensive surgical reconstruction and postoperative care, facing complications such as skin graft integration issues and infections, which required a multidisciplinary treatment approach.
RESUMO
Burn injuries, a major global health concern, result in an estimated 180,000 fatalities annually. Despite tremendous progress in treatment methods over the years, the morbidity and mortality associated with burns remain significant. Autologous skin grafting, particularly split-thickness skin grafting (STSG), has been a cornerstone in burn reconstruction, and it has facilitated survival and functional recovery for total body surface area (TBSA) significantly. However, the requirement for primary closure at the donor site due to the constraints of full-thickness donor harvesting continues to pose challenges. The introduction of dermal regenerative templates (DRT) in the late 1970s marked a substantial step forward in tissue engineering, addressing the inadequacy of dermal replacement with STSGs. This systematic review aimed to compare the outcomes of different graft types - bioengineered, autografts, allografts, and xenografts - in burn reconstruction over the last 24 years. The review focused on the pros and cons of each graft type, offering clinical insights grounded in experience and evidence. The approach involved a systematic review of studies published in English from January 2000 to January 2024, covering randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series. The participants comprised individuals of all ages who underwent burn reconstruction with skin grafts, specifically split-thickness grafts, full-thickness grafts, composite grafts, and epidermal grafts (autografts, allografts, and xenografts) and bioengineered grafts. The primary outcomes were functional and cosmetic results, patient satisfaction, graft survival, and complications. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB 2), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies, and the Canada Institute for Health Economics (IHE) quality appraisal tool for case series. Our initial search yielded a total of 1,995 articles, out of which 10 studies were selected for final analysis. Among the four clinical trials assessed, 75% showed a high risk of bias. The studies reviewed involved various graft types, with six studies (60%) concentrating on allografts, three (30%) on autografts, and one (10%) on bioengineered skin grafts. The outcomes were varied, underlining the intricate nature of burn wound management. Our evaluation revealed promising results for autologous-engineered skin substitutes and allografts but also highlighted methodological disparities among the studies included. The dominance of observational studies and the diversity of outcome measures present obstacles to direct comparisons. Future research should address these limitations, employing well-structured RCTs, standardized outcome measures, and exploring long-term outcomes and patient-specific factors. The rapidly evolving field of regenerative medicine offers great potential for novel grafting methods. This systematic review provides valuable insights into the diverse outcomes of burn reconstruction using different graft types. Autologous-engineered skin substitutes and allografts seem to hold significant promise, suggesting a possible shift in grafting techniques. However, methodological inconsistencies and the lack of high-quality evidence underscore the necessity for further research to fine-tune burn care approaches.