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










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 31(4): 2766-2776, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38245651

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral implant placement for postmastectomy breast reconstruction has increased in recent years. Benefits of prepectoral reconstruction may include lack of animation deformities and reduced postoperative pain, but its complication profile is currently unclear. This study aimed to examine the complication profile of prepectoral tissue expanders (TEs) to determine factors associated with TE loss. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent immediate prepectoral TE reconstruction from January 2018 to June 2021. The decision to use the prepectoral technique was based on mastectomy skin quality and patient comorbidities. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative details were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included TE loss, seroma, hematoma, infection/cellulitis, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and TE exposure. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with TE loss. RESULTS: The study identified 1225 TEs. The most frequent complications were seroma (8.7%, n = 106), infection/cellulitis (8.2%, n = 101), and TE loss (4.2%, n = 51). Factors associated with TE loss in the univariate analysis included ethnicity, history of smoking, body mass index, mastectomy weight, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the multivariate regression analysis, only mastectomy weight had a positive association with TE loss (odds ratio, 1.001; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction can be performed safely with an acceptable early complication profile. The study data suggest that increasing mastectomy weight is the most significant factor associated with TE loss. Further research examining the quality of the soft tissue envelope and assessing patient-reported outcomes would prove beneficial.


Asunto(s)
Implantación de Mama , Implantes de Mama , Neoplasias de la Mama , Mamoplastia , Humanos , Femenino , Mastectomía/efectos adversos , Dispositivos de Expansión Tisular/efectos adversos , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Mama/complicaciones , Celulitis (Flemón)/complicaciones , Celulitis (Flemón)/cirugía , Seroma/cirugía , Mamoplastia/efectos adversos , Mamoplastia/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Implantes de Mama/efectos adversos , Implantación de Mama/efectos adversos , Implantación de Mama/métodos
2.
Plast Reconstr Surg ; 153(2): 262e-272e, 2024 02 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37104467

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma has led to a shift away from textured breast devices. A few small studies have compared the complication rates of textured and smooth tissue expanders (TEs). The aim of this study was to compare complication profiles in patients undergoing two-stage postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either textured or smooth TEs. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of female patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with textured or smooth TEs from 2018 to 2020 at their institution. Rates of seroma, infection/cellulitis, malposition/rotation, exposure, and TE loss were analyzed in the overall cohort and subgroups undergoing prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to decrease the effects of confounders comparing textured and smooth TEs. RESULTS: The authors analyzed 3526 TEs (1456 textured and 2070 smooth). More frequent use of acellular dermal matrix, SPY angiography, and prepectoral TE placement was noted in the smooth TE cohort ( P < 0.001). Univariate analysis suggested higher rates of infection/cellulitis, malposition/rotation, and exposure in smooth TEs (all P < 0.01). Rates of TE loss did not differ. After propensity matching, no differences were noted in infection or TE loss. Prepectoral smooth expanders had increased rates of malposition/rotation. CONCLUSIONS: TE surface type did not affect rates of TE loss, although increased rates of expander malposition were noted in the smooth prepectoral cohort. Further research is needed to examine breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma risk with temporary textured TE exposure to improve decision-making. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCW: Therapeutic, III.


Asunto(s)
Implantes de Mama , Neoplasias de la Mama , Linfoma Anaplásico de Células Grandes , Mamoplastia , Femenino , Humanos , Dispositivos de Expansión Tisular/efectos adversos , Celulitis (Flemón)/etiología , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Mama/complicaciones , Linfoma Anaplásico de Células Grandes/epidemiología , Linfoma Anaplásico de Células Grandes/etiología , Mastectomía/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Mamoplastia/efectos adversos , Implantes de Mama/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...