Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2024
The impact of cosmetic tourism across one year on an NHS breast surgery unit.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ahari Daniel, Zaccariah Zara R, Preston Michael, Highton Lyndsey
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This is a review of patients managed by our single-site breast surgery service for complications of cosmetic surgeries performed abroad and within the UK, across September 2022-2023.
METHODS: A retrospective review of outpatient clinic and emergency theatre lists was used to identify patients; data was collected from their electronic records.
RESULTS: 25 patients (23 female) were identified, 20 had surgery abroad. Turkey was the most common destination that patients travelled to (n = 15), with bilateral breast augmentation being the most common procedure (n = 15). Post-operative infection and wound dehiscence (n = 10 and n = 8, respectively) were the most common complications; 72% (n = 18) of patients presented within 8 weeks of their surgery. There was incomplete recording of surgical details including precise date (recorded for 48%), clinic name (8%), and name of the surgeon (0%). 17 microbiological samples were sent, with 11 resulting in a named organism - Staphylococcus aureus was most common (n = 5). 17 (68%) cases were treated conservatively, without radiological or surgical interventions. When surgical management occurred (n = 6), it was for removal of breast implants (n = 5) or evacuation of haematoma (n = 1). The cost of managing these complications was at least £37,000.
CONCLUSION: Complications from cosmetic tourism present more commonly to the NHS than those resulting from private surgery performed in the UK. This has significant financial implications for the NHS. More accurate recording of relevant data, engagement in audits, and disseminating findings may help raise awareness of the risks and complications of cosmetic surgery performed abroad.
METHODS: A retrospective review of outpatient clinic and emergency theatre lists was used to identify patients; data was collected from their electronic records.
RESULTS: 25 patients (23 female) were identified, 20 had surgery abroad. Turkey was the most common destination that patients travelled to (n = 15), with bilateral breast augmentation being the most common procedure (n = 15). Post-operative infection and wound dehiscence (n = 10 and n = 8, respectively) were the most common complications; 72% (n = 18) of patients presented within 8 weeks of their surgery. There was incomplete recording of surgical details including precise date (recorded for 48%), clinic name (8%), and name of the surgeon (0%). 17 microbiological samples were sent, with 11 resulting in a named organism - Staphylococcus aureus was most common (n = 5). 17 (68%) cases were treated conservatively, without radiological or surgical interventions. When surgical management occurred (n = 6), it was for removal of breast implants (n = 5) or evacuation of haematoma (n = 1). The cost of managing these complications was at least £37,000.
CONCLUSION: Complications from cosmetic tourism present more commonly to the NHS than those resulting from private surgery performed in the UK. This has significant financial implications for the NHS. More accurate recording of relevant data, engagement in audits, and disseminating findings may help raise awareness of the risks and complications of cosmetic surgery performed abroad.