Bone-cartilage proportion in deformed ribs of male pectus excavatum patients.

This study verifies the hypothesis that bone/cartilage proportion in deformed ribs of male pectus excavatum patients varies according to their ages. Anatomical evaluation of the thoraces was performed for 79 male pectus excavatum patients, referring to their three-dimensional computer-tomographic images. The patients were divided into Child Group (5-9 years old: n = 35); Adolescent Group (12-15 years old: n = 15) and Adult Group (18+ years old: n = 29). For each patient, the most concave point of the sternum was identified and the pair of ribs closest to the point were defined as Key Ribs. On each Key Rib, the most ventral point was defined as Prominent Point (PP); the junction between the bone and cartilage was defined as Costo-Chondral Junction (CCJ). The distances of these points from the spine were defined as Distance of Prominent Point (DPP) and Distance of Costo-Chondral Junction (DCCJ), respectively. The horizontal length of the Key Rib was defined as Rib Length (RL). Inter- and intra-group comparisons were performed for DPP/RL and DCCJ/RL. Inter-Group Comparison: DCCJ/RL is significantly smaller and DPP/RL is significantly greater in Adult Group than in Child Group, meaning CCJs shift medially and PPs shift laterally as patients get older. Intra-Group Comparison: In Child Group, DCCJ/RL is significantly greater than DPP/RL, meaning CCJs exist lateral to PPs. Contrarily, in Adult Group, DCCJ/RL is significantly smaller than DPP/RL, meaning CCJs exists medial to PPs. Bone/cartilage proportion in the concave part of the chest shifts according to patients' ages. To perform the Nuss procedure effectively, this age-related anatomical change must be taken into consideration.

Preservation of deep-layer fat of lateral zones prevents postoperative seroma after TRAM-flap harvesting for breast reconstruction: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The present study elucidates whether or not preserving fat tissues deeper than the Scarpa's fascia in zone 3 and zone 4 reduces postoperative fluid collection after harvesting the transverse rectus-abdominis muscle (TRAM) flap. METHODS: Thirty-one patients for whom breast reconstruction with free TRAM flaps had been performed were included in the study. Fat tissues deeper than the Scarpa's fascia in zone 3 and zone 4 were addressed in two ways. With 17 patients, these tissues were preserved on the abdominal wall; with 14 patients, these fat tissues were harvested as part of the TRAM flap. The former and latter groups were named the Preservation Group and Non-Preservation Group, respectively. Drainage tubes were placed at the donor site until daily drainage became less than 20 ml, at which time the tubes were removed. The total amount of postoperative fluid drained from the donor site and the days required before tube removal were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The total volume of drained fluid was significantly greater for the Non-Preservation Group (444 ± 48.2 ml) than for the Preservation Group (230 ± 21.9 ml); the period before removal of drainage tubes was significantly longer for the Non-Preservation Group (12.4 ± 0.84 days) than for the Preservation Group (7.6 ± 0.55 days). CONCLUSION: Preservation of deep-fat tissues in zone 3 and zone 4 reduces postoperative fluid exuded from the donor site, and enables earlier removal of drainage tubes. For cases where optimal breast shape can be achieved without these fat tissues, the fat tissues should be preserved.

The "Sea" should not be operated on in scar revision for "Island-Like" scars.

Scars developing on body surfaces not only restrict body movement, but are also problematic from a cosmetic standpoint. Hence, revision is conducted by removing the scar and re-suturing the resultant defects. In performing scar revision, care should be taken to prevent the re-sutured wounds from developing hypertrophy again. Scars often present a pattern where hard, red parts are separated by soft parts in between. As the hard and soft parts may be analogized as islands and seas respectively, we call this the "Island-Like" scar. Two strategies can be taken to treat scars of this type. The first is to remove the entire scar-including both hard and soft parts; the second is to remove only the hard parts and leave the soft parts untouched. The authors conducted a biomechanical study using finite element analyses and found that as a body moves, greater stresses occur in the peri-wound regions with the first strategy than with the second strategy. A wound's likelihood to develop hypertrophy increases as the stresses working on it increase. Hence, it is hypothesized that the second strategy carries less risk of the operated wounds developing re-hypertrophy than the first strategy. Based on this logic, in performing scar revision for scars consisting of hard and soft parts, it is recommended only to remove only hard parts and not to operate on soft parts in between.