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

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
World J Surg Oncol ; 18(1): 87, 2020 May 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32370753

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The latissimus dorsi muscle has long been used in breast cancer (BC) patients for reconstruction. This study aimed to compare early stage BC patients who had partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (MI) with respect to quality of life (QoL), cosmetic outcome (CO), and survival rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data of patients who underwent PM + MLDF (Group 1) and M + I (Group 2) between January 2010 and January 2018 were evaluated. Both groups were compared in terms of demographics, clinical and pathological characteristics, surgical morbidity, survival, quality of life, and cosmetic results. The EORTC-QLQ C30 and EORTC-QLO BR23 questionnaires and the Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) Cosmetic Evaluation Scale were used to assess the quality of life and the cosmetic outcome, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients were included in the study, 242 (76.3%) of them in group 1 and 75 (23.6%) of them in group 2. Median follow-up time was 56 (14-116) months. There were no differences identified between the groups in terms of tumor histology, hormonal receptors and HER-2 positivity, surgical morbidity, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Group 2 patients were significantly younger than group 1 (p = 0.003). The multifocality/multicentricity rate was higher in group 2 (p ≤ 0.001), whereas tumor size (p = 0.009), body mass index (BMI, p = 0.006), histological grade (p ≤ 0.001), lymph node positivity (p = 0.002), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) rate (p = 0.005), and presence of lympho-vascular invasion (LVI, p = 0.013) were significantly higher in group 1. When the quality of life was assessed by using the EORTC QLQ C30 and BR23 questionnaires, it was seen that the body image perception (p < 0.001) and nausea/vomiting score (p = 0.024) were significantly better in PM + MLDF group whereas physical function score was significantly better in M + I group (p = 0.012). When both groups were examined in terms of cosmesis with JBCS Cosmetic Evaluation Scale, good cosmetic evaluation score was significantly higher in patients in MLDF group (p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: The results of this study indicate that in comparison to M + I procedure, the PM + MLDF procedure provides significantly superior results in terms of body image and cosmetic result with similar morbidity and oncologic outcomes. In selected patients with small breasts and a high tumor/breast ratio, PM + MLDF may be an alternative to subcutaneous mastectomy and implant.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Mamoplastia/métodos , Mastectomía Segmentaria/efectos adversos , Mastectomía Subcutánea/efectos adversos , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Anciano , Mama/patología , Mama/cirugía , Implantes de Mama , Neoplasias de la Mama/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Estética , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Mamoplastia/instrumentación , Mamoplastia/psicología , Mastectomía Segmentaria/métodos , Mastectomía Subcutánea/instrumentación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Satisfacción del Paciente , Selección de Paciente , Pronóstico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Músculos Superficiales de la Espalda/trasplante , Colgajos Quirúrgicos/trasplante , Tasa de Supervivencia , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA