Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
A Comparison of Modified Radical Mastectomy, Breast Conservation Therapy, and Nipple-sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Implant Reconstruction.
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.
Pan Chi, Jiang Hui, Zhou Jian, Sang Kai, Huang Xuchen, Yi Tongbo, Ni Qingtao
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated and compared the perioperative outcomes and quality of life associated with modified radical mastectomy (MRM), breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and nipple- and areola-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (NSM-IBR).
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 105 patients with breast cancer, stratified into MRM (n = 35), BCS (n = 35), and NSM-IBR (n = 35) groups. The perioperative outcomes (operative times, intraoperative blood loss, and recent complications) were subsequently compared across the 3 groups. Differences in patient satisfaction were assessed using the 36-item short form health survey scale 3 months after surgery.
RESULTS: In the NSM-IBR group, the mean operative time was 207.1 ± 38.7 minutes, significantly longer than that in the MRM and BCS groups (P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss in the BCS group was significantly lower than in the MRM and NSM-IBR groups (P < 0.05). The total 36-item short form health survey score in the NSM-IBR group was higher than in the BCS and MRM groups (80.03 ± 1.27 versus 54.51 ± 3.35, P < 0.001; 80.03 ± 1.27 versus 78.46 ± 1.42, P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: NSM-IBR warrants promotion as a means to enhance the postoperative psychological and physiological health of patients with breast cancer. Surgeons should undergo specialized training to reduce complications associated with the procedural complexity of NSM-IBR.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 105 patients with breast cancer, stratified into MRM (n = 35), BCS (n = 35), and NSM-IBR (n = 35) groups. The perioperative outcomes (operative times, intraoperative blood loss, and recent complications) were subsequently compared across the 3 groups. Differences in patient satisfaction were assessed using the 36-item short form health survey scale 3 months after surgery.
RESULTS: In the NSM-IBR group, the mean operative time was 207.1 ± 38.7 minutes, significantly longer than that in the MRM and BCS groups (P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss in the BCS group was significantly lower than in the MRM and NSM-IBR groups (P < 0.05). The total 36-item short form health survey score in the NSM-IBR group was higher than in the BCS and MRM groups (80.03 ± 1.27 versus 54.51 ± 3.35, P < 0.001; 80.03 ± 1.27 versus 78.46 ± 1.42, P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: NSM-IBR warrants promotion as a means to enhance the postoperative psychological and physiological health of patients with breast cancer. Surgeons should undergo specialized training to reduce complications associated with the procedural complexity of NSM-IBR.