Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024
Technical Refinements for Reducing Reoperations in Single-Stage Augmentation Mastopexy: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.
СтатьяКомментарийНазвание 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.
Marino Matteo, Alessandri-Bonetti Mario, Carbonaro Riccardo, Amendola Francesco
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The goals of mastopexy differ significantly from those of augmentation mammoplasty. Mastopexy is designed to lift and reshape the breasts, while augmentation mammoplasty is designed to increase the volume of the breasts. This conflict causes that one-stage augmentation mastopexies showed a revision rate from 8.7 to 23.2%. The aim of our study is to present some technical refinements for reducing the risk of implant exposure and reoperation.
METHODS: We designed a retrospective matched cohort study, including 216 consecutive patients, undergone augmentation mastopexy between January 2013 and December 2022. We divided them in two groups: Group A undergone an inverted-T superomedial pedicled augmentation mastopexy and Group B undergone our inverted-T modified augmentation mastopexy. The groups were matched for clinical and surgical variables, with the surgical technique the only difference between the two.
RESULTS: Complications were registered in ten patients (9.3%) in Group A (two wound breakdowns at T with implant exposure and eight wound dehiscences), six of which required surgical revision. In contrast, only three patients (2.8%) in Group B reported a complication, which was wound dehiscence without implant exposure in all cases. None of the dehiscence required surgical revision. The difference between complication and revision rates was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Separating the implant and the mastopexy dissection planes reduces the implant exposure and the reoperation rate in one-stage augmentation mastopexy.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors https://link.springer.com/journal/00266 .
METHODS: We designed a retrospective matched cohort study, including 216 consecutive patients, undergone augmentation mastopexy between January 2013 and December 2022. We divided them in two groups: Group A undergone an inverted-T superomedial pedicled augmentation mastopexy and Group B undergone our inverted-T modified augmentation mastopexy. The groups were matched for clinical and surgical variables, with the surgical technique the only difference between the two.
RESULTS: Complications were registered in ten patients (9.3%) in Group A (two wound breakdowns at T with implant exposure and eight wound dehiscences), six of which required surgical revision. In contrast, only three patients (2.8%) in Group B reported a complication, which was wound dehiscence without implant exposure in all cases. None of the dehiscence required surgical revision. The difference between complication and revision rates was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Separating the implant and the mastopexy dissection planes reduces the implant exposure and the reoperation rate in one-stage augmentation mastopexy.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors https://link.springer.com/journal/00266 .