Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026
Breast Reconstruction Using Smooth, Nonmagnetic Radiofrequency Identification Port Tissue Expanders.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Munhoz Alexandre Mendonça, Tejerina Antonio, Ruano Angela Garcia, Netto Rafael, Celet Ozden Burcu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Most breast reconstructions are implant-based and performed in 2 stages using tissue expanders (TEs). Despite widespread indications for use, conventional TEs can present limitations, especially those containing metallic or magnetic ports. A new generation of TEs that incorporates nonmetallic radiofrequency identification systems (RFID TE) has been introduced. The authors assessed outcomes and risk factors for complications after implant-based reconstruction (IBR) with RFID TE systems.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients who underwent IBR with RFID TEs was identified. The primary end point was occurrence of complications or identification of risk factors. The authors also evaluated the quality of magnetic resonance imaging scans (T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences) taken for further diagnosis.
RESULTS: A total of 356 patients (mean age, 49.9 ± 9.6 years) received 471 IBR RFID TE systems. The average follow-up was 29.4 ± 16.6 months. A total of 77 patients (21.6%) experienced complications, most frequently seroma (7.8%). A greater number of complications were observed in older patients ( P = 0.005), smokers ( P = 0.009), patients who received radiotherapy ( P = 0.005), and patients who received reconstruction using a premuscular pocket ( P = 0.001). Multivariate regression found that older patients and smokers had odds ratios (ORs) of 2.12 ( P = 0.013) and 2.30 ( P = 0.024) for developing complications, respectively. Radiotherapy (OR, 2.29; P = 0.024) was also an independent risk factor for overall complications. Use of a submuscular pocket was associated with significantly lower odds of developing seroma (OR, 0.21; P = 0.08). Magnetic resonance imaging scans demonstrated excellent quality, with no artifact-related negative effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive research on IBR, previous studies on RFID TEs are limited and did not analyze predictive risk factors. These findings demonstrate that RFID TEs are reliable, with results similar to those of other series using different devices. The absence of significant imaging artifacts facilitates follow-up surveillance and represents an important advantage over traditional TEs.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients who underwent IBR with RFID TEs was identified. The primary end point was occurrence of complications or identification of risk factors. The authors also evaluated the quality of magnetic resonance imaging scans (T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences) taken for further diagnosis.
RESULTS: A total of 356 patients (mean age, 49.9 ± 9.6 years) received 471 IBR RFID TE systems. The average follow-up was 29.4 ± 16.6 months. A total of 77 patients (21.6%) experienced complications, most frequently seroma (7.8%). A greater number of complications were observed in older patients ( P = 0.005), smokers ( P = 0.009), patients who received radiotherapy ( P = 0.005), and patients who received reconstruction using a premuscular pocket ( P = 0.001). Multivariate regression found that older patients and smokers had odds ratios (ORs) of 2.12 ( P = 0.013) and 2.30 ( P = 0.024) for developing complications, respectively. Radiotherapy (OR, 2.29; P = 0.024) was also an independent risk factor for overall complications. Use of a submuscular pocket was associated with significantly lower odds of developing seroma (OR, 0.21; P = 0.08). Magnetic resonance imaging scans demonstrated excellent quality, with no artifact-related negative effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive research on IBR, previous studies on RFID TEs are limited and did not analyze predictive risk factors. These findings demonstrate that RFID TEs are reliable, with results similar to those of other series using different devices. The absence of significant imaging artifacts facilitates follow-up surveillance and represents an important advantage over traditional TEs.