Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Reconstr Microsurg ; 38(7): 579-584, 2022 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35135030

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) reconstruction can be performed in an immediate (at time of mastectomy), delayed-immediate (immediate tissue expander followed by staged DIEP), or delayed timing following mastectomy. Avoiding flap radiation is a known benefit of the delayed-immediate approach. The purpose of this study is to evaluate patients who chose DIEP flap as the reconstructive method during initial consultation and compared characteristics of surgery in relation to their final reconstructive choice. METHODS: Consecutive patients having breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2019 were divided into three groups: immediate DIEP after mastectomy (Group I); delayed-immediate DIEP with tissue expander first followed by DIEP (Group II); and patients who initially chose delayed-immediate DIEP but later decided on implants for the second stage of reconstruction (Group III). Exclusion criteria were patients that had delayed DIEP (no immediate reconstruction) or had initially chose implant-based reconstruction. RESULTS: The study included 59 patients. Unilateral free flaps in Group II had shorter operative times (318 minutes) compared with Group I unilateral free flaps (488 minutes) (p = 0.024). Eleven patients (30.6%) had prophylactic mastectomies in Group I compared with none in Group II (p = 0.004). Patients who had immediate tissue expansion frequently changed their mind from DIEP to implant for second stage reconstruction frequently (52.2%). CONCLUSION: Delayed-immediate DIEP reconstruction has several advantages over immediate DIEP flap including shorter free flap operative times. Patients commonly alter their preference for second stage reconstruction. A patient-centered advantage of delayed-immediate reconstruction is prolonging the time for patients to make their choice for the final reconstruction.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Mamoplastia , Retalho Perfurante , Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Artérias Epigástricas/cirurgia , Feminino , Humanos , Mamoplastia/métodos , Mastectomia , Retalho Perfurante/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Expansão de Tecido
2.
Plast Reconstr Surg ; 151(4): 577e-580e, 2023 04 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36729976

RESUMO

SUMMARY: Staged implant-based breast reconstruction with immediate tissue expanders (TEs) is the most common method of breast reconstruction after mastectomy. TEs traditionally are filled with saline for expansion. Some surgeons have advocated initial intraoperative fill of the TE with air to avoid excess pressure on ischemic mastectomy skin flaps. The purpose of the study was to compare intraoperative air versus saline tissue fills. All patients who underwent prepectoral TE reconstruction after mastectomy from 2017 to 2019 were reviewed. The primary predictive variable was whether saline or air was used for initial tissue expansion. Outcome variables included mastectomy skin necrosis, nipple necrosis, infection, number of expansions, hematoma, and explantation. A total of 53 patients (88 TEs) were included in the study: 28 patients (44 TEs) who underwent initial intraoperative fill with air and 25 patients (44 TEs) who underwent an initial saline fill were assessed. There were no significant differences in complication rates between initial TE fill with saline versus air, including nipple necrosis, wound dehiscence, cellulitis, abscess, or TE removal ( P = 1.0). The number of postoperative TE fills in the initial air fill group was 3.2 compared to 2.7 in the initial saline fill group ( P = 0.27). Prepectoral TE initial fill with air has similar postoperative outcomes compared to initial saline fill. The authors found no benefit to initially filling prepectoral TEs with air intraoperatively. Given the additional effort of exchanging air for saline during the first postoperative fill, there was no clinical advantage of filling prepectoral TEs with air. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.


Assuntos
Implantes de Mama , Neoplasias da Mama , Mamoplastia , Humanos , Feminino , Dispositivos para Expansão de Tecidos/efeitos adversos , Mastectomia/efeitos adversos , Mastectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Neoplasias da Mama/complicações , Estudos Retrospectivos , Mamoplastia/efeitos adversos , Mamoplastia/métodos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Necrose/etiologia , Implantes de Mama/efeitos adversos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA