BACKGROUNDNipple creation using the C-V flap technique is often the final step in breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to subjectively and objectively assess the cosmetic outcomes and satisfaction of patients undergoing C-V flap nipple reconstruction.METHODSSubjective assessments of patient satisfaction with the neo-nipple were recorded by visual analogue scoring (VAS; 0-10). Objective measurements were performed using a calliper to measure nipple projection relative to the native breast. Descriptive data analysis was performed with differences in projection assessed with the Mann-Whitney test and mean and median VAS scores (with inter-quartile ranges; IQR) calculated to describe satisfaction.RESULTSThirty-three C-V flap nipple reconstructions were performed. 87.9% received latissimus dorsi (LD) reconstructions with implants and 12.1% had transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) reconstructions. The median projection of reconstructed nipples was 4.7 mm (range 4-10.2 mm) at 4.6 years mean follow-up, which was not significantly different from the contralateral nipple (p = 0.34). Patient satisfaction was 9 (IQR: 8-10) with shape, 9 (IQR: 7.5-10) with projection, 5 (IQR: 2-9.6) with sensation, and 8.5 (IQR: 6-9.5) with symmetry. Median overall satisfaction was 9 (IQR: 8-10). Three patients had complete nipple loss, of whom two had undergone nipple piercing post procedure and none had received radiotherapy.CONCLUSIONC-V flap nipple reconstructions provide a simple and reliable method to reconstruct the nipple that enhances confidence and perception of body image. Satisfaction was high with long-term outcomes in terms of projection equivalent to the contralateral breast.
Background: Axillary lymph node status is the most important breast cancer prognostic factor. Preoperative axillary ultrasound examination (PAUS) is used to triage patients for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We assessed the detection rate of lymph node metastases by PAUS in a screening unit and evaluated associations between clinicopathological factors and PAUS positivity. Patients and Methods: This was a single-centre retrospective analysis of data extracted from a hospital breast cancer database and clinical records. Clinical, radiological, and pathological and prognostic indices were compared between PAUS-positive and PAUS-negative patients subsequently found to have lymph node metastases on histopathological analysis. Results: Two hundred and two patients were eligible for analysis. 50.5% of lymph node-positive patients were correctly identified as PAUS positive. Patients with PAUS-positive lymph nodes had less favourable disease characteristics, namely clinically palpable lymph nodes, higher Nottingham prognostic index (NPI), high lymph node burden according to the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) group classification, and larger, grade 3 tumours with lymphovascular invasion and extranodal spread. Moreover, PAUS-positive patients had more macrometastases and lymph node involvement than PAUS-negative patients. Conclusion: PAUS-positive patients and PAUS-negative (SLNB-positive) patients have different clinicopathological characteristics. The presence of LVI, extranodal spread, grade 3 histology, or large tumours with poor prognostic indexes in PAUS-negative patients should be regarded with caution and perhaps prompt second-look ultrasound examination.
Hypothenar Hammer syndrome' (HHS) describes the symptoms and signs produced by thrombosis or aneurysm of the ulnar artery as a consequence of repeated blunt trauma to the hypothenar eminence. We describe a case report of a man presenting with symptoms of ulnar artery thrombosis as result of blunt trauma secondary to his occupation and related patents. Radiological findings and management options are briefly discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.