RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Immediate action is required to address some complications of implant-based reconstruction after mastectomy to prevent reconstruction failure. Implant exchange may be simple but poses the risk of further complications while autologous flap reconstruction seems more complex but may pose less subsequent risk. Which of these is preferable remains unclear. METHODS: We reviewed thirty-two female breast cancer patients who had serious complications with their breast implants after post-mastectomy reconstruction. Latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) patients underwent explantation and immediate reconstruction with an LDF, while implant exchange (IE) patients underwent immediate implant removal and exchange with an expander followed by delayed reconstruction with silicon or immediately with a smaller size silicone implant. RESULTS: LDF patients underwent a single operation with an average duration of care of 31 days compared to an average 1.8 procedures (p= 0.005) with an average duration of care of 129.9 days (p < 0.001) among IE patients. Seven IE (50%) had serious complications that required subsequent revision while no LDF patients required additional procedures. Patient overall satisfaction and esthetics results were also superior in the LDF group at six months. CONCLUSION: In patients who want to reconstructively rescue and salvage their severely infected or exposed breast implant, the LDF offers an entirely autologous solution. LDF reconstruction in this setting allows patients to avoid an extended duration of care, reduces their risk of complications, and preserves the reconstructive process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: The journal asks authors to assign a level of evidence to each article. For a complete description of Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, see the Table of Contents or the online Instructions for Authors at www.springer.com/00266 .
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the incidence of cardiac events and to identify its predictors in left breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy using breath-hold technique (DIBH) versus free breathing technique (FB). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multi-center study of two arms; the free breathing arm included 208 patients who were treated with traditional radiotherapy treatment technique, while DIBH arm included 224 patients who were treated with breath-hold technique using The Varian Real-time Position Management (RPM). We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of the patients from January 2010 to December 2017. RESULTS: The mean dose to the heart and left anterior descending artery were significantly lower in the DIBH arm (2.10 ± 0.39 and 6.16 ± 0.18 Gy) compared with (4.29 ± 0.60 Gy and 12.69 ± 0.93 Gy, respectively) in the FB arm. The incidence of cardiac events was higher in the FB arm than in the DIBH arm, but it was not statically significant. Our analysis revealed that age, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, mean LAD dose, and heart mean dose were significant prognostic factors for the occurrence of cardiac events in the breath-hold arm. Hypertension, smoking, as well as heart mean dose were independent risk factors for the occurrence of cardiac events. CONCLUSION: Use of the DIBH technique resulted in a significant reduction in doses to the heart, LAD and lesser cardiac events incidence compared to free breathing.