RESUMEN
Breast reconstruction in postbariatric patients presents unique challenges due to substantial weight loss-induced body deformities. We present the case of a 51-year-old woman with massive lower abdominal deformities who underwent a mastectomy treatment followed by a temporary expander-based reconstruction. A year later, a fleur-de-lis-shaped free deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap and abdominoplasty were performed for autologous reconstruction and abdominal contouring. This design addressed both purposes while allowing a voluminous flap to be harvested on periumbilical perforators. No postoperative complications were found, and the outcomes were favorable. Although deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps are standard in autologous breast reconstruction, our case demonstrates the utility of the fleur-de-lis design in massive weight loss patients for vascular safety and volume enhancement. Finally, we discuss this rarely described approach and compare it with other variants, showcasing versatility in addressing complex reconstruction needs in this particular patient population.
RESUMEN
Background: Axillary hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) can result in significant functional impairment in both personal and professional lives. Stage 3 HS requires radical surgical treatment. Flap reconstruction allows for faster healing and better functional and aesthetic outcomes. We compared the results of thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) and propeller inner arm artery perforator (IAAP) flap reconstructions after radical surgical treatment of axillary HS. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study that included 13 consecutive patients who underwent stage 3 axillary HS treatment between August 2015 and January 2023. Seven patients underwent reconstruction by islanded TDAP flaps, whereas six patients underwent reconstruction by propeller IAAP flaps, with one patient undergoing bilateral reconstruction. The data collected from the patient records included age, gender, smoking status, body mass index, comorbidities, operative time, defect size, flap size, hospital stay, and complications. Results: Although not statistically significant (P = 0.1923), a higher rate of flap complications is reported here with propeller IAAP flaps (42.86 %), whereas islanded TDAP flaps had no flap complications (0%). We found a statistically significant difference in operative time (P = 0.0006), defect size (P = 0.0064), and flap size (P = 0.0012) between the two groups. All patients exhibited satisfactory functional and aesthetic outcomes. Fourteen flaps were performed in total; only one case exhibited recurrence (7.14%). Conclusion: After radical surgical management, both islanded TDAP and propeller IAAP flap reconstructions offer excellent outcomes for stage 3 axillary HS. We strongly encourage our peers to consider performing perforator flaps over secondary healing for these patients with a major functional impairment.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Different approaches have been proposed to treat malocclusion secondary to the treatment of maxillofacial trauma. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of prosthodontic treatment, orthodontic treatment, and implant-supported rehabilitation for the management of secondary malocclusion after maxillofacial trauma. STUDY SELECTION: We searched five electronic databases and hand searched eight journals. The types of studies included were randomized controlled trials, cohorts, case-controls, and case series with at least eight patients with maxillofacial trauma and postoperative malocclusion. These studies used prosthetic treatment and implant-supported rehabilitation for secondary malocclusion after maxillofacial trauma. Risk of bias of eligible studies to be included in the final analysis was assessed independently by two authors using a tool for methodological quality assessment and synthesis of case series and case reports. RESULTS: After initial screening and identification of titles and abstracts, full text of 44 articles were found and evaluated against inclusion criteria. Of these 42 articles were excluded and remaining two were included in the review. Both the studies were case series with moderate to high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Both prosthetic treatment and implant-supported rehabilitation have the potential to restore secondary malocclusion after maxillofacial trauma. However, because less number of well-designed studies with high risk of bias were included in this systematic review, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Well-designed high-quality studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.