Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2019
Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction with latissimus flap: Prepectoral versus subpectoral approach.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Akyurek Mustafa, Dowlatshahi Samandar, Quinlan Robert M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Use of latissimus flap in prosthetic breast reconstruction after mastectomy is an established approach, particularly in patients who have failed breast-conserving therapy. This study presents a comparison of the prepectoral and the subpectoral approach for two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction with a latissimus flap.
METHODS: A retrospective review of outcomes and complications was completed between the prepectoral group (n = 33 patients, 50 reconstructed breasts) and the subpectoral group (n = 22 patients, 36 reconstructed breasts).
RESULTS: The demographics were similar between the prepectoral and subpectoral groups in terms of mean age (52.4 vs. 52.5 years, p = 0.97), smoking history (15.1% vs. 13.6%; p = 1.00), radiation history (75.8% vs. 91.0%; p = 0.28), and mean length of follow-up (479 vs. 680 days; p = 0.07). The body mass index was significantly higher in the prepectoral group (27.6 vs. 25.2 kg/m2; p = 0.03). Complications were similar between the groups in terms of hematoma (9.1% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.26), infection resulting in implant failure (9.1% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.64), thromboembolic events (3.0% vs. 4.5%, p = 1.0), donor site seroma (66.7% vs. 40.9%, p = 0.09), breast seroma (18.2% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.51), capsular contracture (9.1% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.64), animation deformity (39.4% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.58), and reoperation (24.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 1.00). Patient satisfaction scores were also similar between the groups (4.33 ± 1.08 vs. 4.14 ± 1.13, p = 0.52).
CONCLUSIONS: The prepectoral approach for two-stage immediate prosthetic reconstruction with a latissimus flap has similar outcomes and complications to those of the subpectoral approach, yet obviating the need for any pectoralis major muscle dissection.
METHODS: A retrospective review of outcomes and complications was completed between the prepectoral group (n = 33 patients, 50 reconstructed breasts) and the subpectoral group (n = 22 patients, 36 reconstructed breasts).
RESULTS: The demographics were similar between the prepectoral and subpectoral groups in terms of mean age (52.4 vs. 52.5 years, p = 0.97), smoking history (15.1% vs. 13.6%; p = 1.00), radiation history (75.8% vs. 91.0%; p = 0.28), and mean length of follow-up (479 vs. 680 days; p = 0.07). The body mass index was significantly higher in the prepectoral group (27.6 vs. 25.2 kg/m2; p = 0.03). Complications were similar between the groups in terms of hematoma (9.1% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.26), infection resulting in implant failure (9.1% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.64), thromboembolic events (3.0% vs. 4.5%, p = 1.0), donor site seroma (66.7% vs. 40.9%, p = 0.09), breast seroma (18.2% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.51), capsular contracture (9.1% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.64), animation deformity (39.4% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.58), and reoperation (24.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 1.00). Patient satisfaction scores were also similar between the groups (4.33 ± 1.08 vs. 4.14 ± 1.13, p = 0.52).
CONCLUSIONS: The prepectoral approach for two-stage immediate prosthetic reconstruction with a latissimus flap has similar outcomes and complications to those of the subpectoral approach, yet obviating the need for any pectoralis major muscle dissection.