Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2019
A Matched-Pair Analysis of Prepectoral with Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction: Is There a Difference in Postoperative Complication Rate?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Momeni Arash, Remington Austin C, Wan Derrick C, Nguyen Dung, Gurtner Geoffrey C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The development of acellular dermal matrices has revolutionized implant-based breast reconstruction. The most recent development has been the introduction of prepectoral breast reconstruction. However, concerns have been expressed related to the quality of soft-tissue coverage and infectious complications. Thus, the authors felt it prudent to perform a matched-pair analysis of clinical outcomes following prepectoral and subpectoral tissue expander placement.
METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction by means of prepectoral (group 1) and dual-plane subpectoral (group 2) tissue expander placement was performed. Patients in each group were matched for age, body mass index, history of radiotherapy, and type of acellular dermal matrix. Of note, patients in group 1 received perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for less than 24 hours, whereas patients in group 2 received antibiotic prophylaxis for at least 1 week.
RESULTS: A total of 80 patients (138 breast reconstructions) were included in the study (group 1, n = 40; group 2, n = 40). No difference in total postoperative complication rate (p = 0.356) and mastectomy skin necrosis rate (p = 1.0) was noted. Observed differences in major complications (p = 0.06), major infection (p = 0.09), and loss of reconstruction (p = 0.09) were not found to be significant.
CONCLUSION: Immediate prepectoral tissue expander insertion with anterior acellular dermal matrix coverage and less than 24 hours of antibiotic prophylaxis is safe and compares favorably to subpectoral tissue expander placement with an inferior acellular dermal matrix sling and a prolonged course of antibiotics.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction by means of prepectoral (group 1) and dual-plane subpectoral (group 2) tissue expander placement was performed. Patients in each group were matched for age, body mass index, history of radiotherapy, and type of acellular dermal matrix. Of note, patients in group 1 received perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for less than 24 hours, whereas patients in group 2 received antibiotic prophylaxis for at least 1 week.
RESULTS: A total of 80 patients (138 breast reconstructions) were included in the study (group 1, n = 40; group 2, n = 40). No difference in total postoperative complication rate (p = 0.356) and mastectomy skin necrosis rate (p = 1.0) was noted. Observed differences in major complications (p = 0.06), major infection (p = 0.09), and loss of reconstruction (p = 0.09) were not found to be significant.
CONCLUSION: Immediate prepectoral tissue expander insertion with anterior acellular dermal matrix coverage and less than 24 hours of antibiotic prophylaxis is safe and compares favorably to subpectoral tissue expander placement with an inferior acellular dermal matrix sling and a prolonged course of antibiotics.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.