Tumori · 2015
Mammographic findings after reshaping with autoprosthesis in women undergoing contralateral breast reconstruction and mastectomy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Scaperrotta Gianfranco, Capalbo Emanuela, Ferranti Claudio, Falco Giuseppe, Nava Maurizio B, Di Leo Gianni, Marchesini Monica, Suman Laura, Panizza Pietro
Аннотация
AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Breast reduction and mastopexy combined with inferior dermo-lipo-glandular flap (autoprosthesis) gives good breast shape, long-term projection, and upper pole fullness. We assess the impact on breast oncologic surveillance compared to other techniques.
METHODS: A total of 105 patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction were divided into 3 groups of 35 patients each: groups 1 and 2 include patients with contralateral breast symmetrization performed with and without autoprosthesis technique, respectively. Group 3 is a control group without contralateral breast reshaping. On mammography, edema, skin thickening, architectural distortion, and calcifications were recorded, as well as further diagnostic examinations, biopsies, and surgical treatments required.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (p<0.001) in the first follow-up mammography between groups 1 and 2 were stromal edema (6% vs 51%) and architectural distortion (74% vs 63%). The latest findings meant architectural distortion also have significant difference (p<0.001) in the last mammography (79% vs 66%). Microcalcification has statistically significant difference (p<0.001) in the latest postsurgical mammography, increased in group 1. Skin thickening had a similar course in either group. Mammography follow-up was not impaired in most cases notwithstanding the parenchyma distortion as compared with mammography after breast-conserving surgery. Four core biopsies were performed in both groups: 3 new breast cancers and 1 benign epithelial hyperplasia were found.
CONCLUSIONS: No difficulties were found impairing mammographic evaluation in patients treated with autoprosthesis as compared to other techniques.
METHODS: A total of 105 patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction were divided into 3 groups of 35 patients each: groups 1 and 2 include patients with contralateral breast symmetrization performed with and without autoprosthesis technique, respectively. Group 3 is a control group without contralateral breast reshaping. On mammography, edema, skin thickening, architectural distortion, and calcifications were recorded, as well as further diagnostic examinations, biopsies, and surgical treatments required.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (p<0.001) in the first follow-up mammography between groups 1 and 2 were stromal edema (6% vs 51%) and architectural distortion (74% vs 63%). The latest findings meant architectural distortion also have significant difference (p<0.001) in the last mammography (79% vs 66%). Microcalcification has statistically significant difference (p<0.001) in the latest postsurgical mammography, increased in group 1. Skin thickening had a similar course in either group. Mammography follow-up was not impaired in most cases notwithstanding the parenchyma distortion as compared with mammography after breast-conserving surgery. Four core biopsies were performed in both groups: 3 new breast cancers and 1 benign epithelial hyperplasia were found.
CONCLUSIONS: No difficulties were found impairing mammographic evaluation in patients treated with autoprosthesis as compared to other techniques.