A Comparative Study on Aesthetic and Pain Outcomes in Flap Versus Implant Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

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.

Restorative Strategies for Bilateral Mutilated Hands in a Secondary Care Level: A Report of a Case in Mexico.

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.

A Comparative Analysis of the Outcomes of Various Graft Types in Burn Reconstruction Over the Past 24 Years: A Systematic Review.

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.

Comparing Perioperative Outcomes of Total Intravenous Anesthesia (TIVA) With Volatile Anesthesia in Patients With Obesity: A Systematic Review.

In this systematic review, the perioperative outcomes of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anesthesia were compared in obese adults (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) undergoing elective surgery. The review analyzed data from 12 randomized-controlled trials involving 935 patients, sourced from PubMed/MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The focus was on intraoperative vital signs, emergence time, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and ICU admission rates. Findings showed that TIVA (using propofol) might reduce PONV, but there were no significant differences in other outcomes compared to volatile anesthesia (with desflurane as the most common agent). The review highlights the need for more research, especially comparing sevoflurane with TIVA, to establish clear clinical guidelines for anesthesia in obese patients.

Effectiveness of Tranexamic Acid in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review.

Tranexamic acid (TXA), a fibrinolytic agent, effectively inhibits plasminogen activation, thereby reducing fibrinolysis and hemorrhage. This study focused on its application in trauma patients undergoing emergency surgery, a critical area due to trauma's significant role in mortality. Our investigation involved a meticulous screening of randomized controlled trials from databases including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane. The findings indicate that TXA intervention is promising in enhancing outcomes for trauma patients. However, the drug's effectiveness may vary based on the specific nature of the medical condition. In summary, robust evidence suggests that TXA can diminish blood loss, lower transfusion rates, reduce complications, and improve hemoglobin and hematocrit levels in surgical patients. Consequently, TXA should be considered a crucial medication, readily available to mitigate morbidity and mortality in surgical settings. Future research should explore factors influencing TXA's effectiveness in traumatic brain injury cases and across a broad spectrum of surgical scenarios in diverse patient populations. This would further guide clinicians in refining and optimizing the use of TXA.