Quel est le palmarès des techniques de reconstruction mammaire à long terme ?

Bodin, F.; Zink, S.; Lutz, Jean-Christophe; Kadoch, V.; Wilk, A; Bruant-Rodier, C.

doi:10.1016/j.anplas.2010.09.013

Cited by 27 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the study by Hu et al [19], patient satisfaction in the first 5 years after the procedure did not differ between TRAM flap and expander-implant reconstruction. However, as Bodin et al [20] demonstrated, patient satisfaction subsequently decreases in later years in the group with heterologous reconstruction. In our study, patient satisfaction reached its maximum level in the first year after surgery (30.77 % rated their satisfaction with the outcome after surgery as "very good" and 23.08 % as "good") and decreased in subsequent years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Impact of Age, Obesity and Smoking on Patient Satisfaction with Breast Implant Surgery – A Unicentric Analysis of 318 Implant Reconstructions after Mastectomy

Kern

Zarth

Rezai

2015

Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

!Aim: Breast reconstruction has become increasingly important for the body image of women with breast cancer. We conducted a study to investigate how patient characteristics correlate with surgical outcome after breast reconstruction with implant after mastectomy and to identify risk factors which could facilitate patient selection for reconstruction. Patients and Methods: For this case cohort analysis (n = 257 patients with 318 heterologous reconstructions), we analyzed BMI, smoking, preexisting disease, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, one-stage/two-stage reconstruction, immediate/ delayed reconstruction, antibiotic therapy and complications, partner interaction and adherence to the decision for reconstruction using a customized questionnaire. Results: 257 patients with 318 implant reconstructions (196 unilateral, 61 bilateral) were eligible for inclusion in the study. Median follow-up time was 3.1 years (range: 1 month to 10 years). Response rate to the questionnaire was 71.8 %. Median age was 49 years (range 24-79 years), median BMI was 22.44 (range 16.33-40.09). A BMI > 30 was inversely correlated with positive self-image (p = 0.004), and implant loss/rotation was more frequent in this group (p < 0.05). Smoking > 10 cigarettes/day had a negative impact on surgical outcome. A positive self-image had a positive impact on partner interaction (p < 0.001) and was correlated with a lower perception of pain. Aesthetic results did not vary with age (p = 0.054). Titanized polypropylene meshes were used to protect against implant rotation (p = 0.034). Rates of capsular fibrosis were low in our cohort (< 10%), and implant loss rate was less than 2 %. Conclusions: This study offers a differentiated approach for the pre-surgical counselling of patients and shows that patients up to 80 years of age are

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Impact of Age, Obesity and Smoking on Patient Satisfaction with Breast Implant Surgery – A Unicentric Analysis of 318 Implant Reconstructions after Mastectomy

Kern

Zarth

Rezai

2015

Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although Haddock et al 1 acknowledged that costs related to operative minutes can vary to a great extent due to the region, type of procedure, and the inclusion/ exclusion of fixed overhead costs, 31 they determined a cost savings of $4751.66 using a co-surgeon model compared with a single-surgeon model per case. 1 Using the estimates from previous reports, [32][33][34] Weichman et al estimated that a co-surgeon model would save as much as $7226.10 in bilateral reconstructions and $5865.90 in unilateral reconstruction. 28 Initially, using time-driven activity-based costing principles for assistant, associate, and full professors, the implementation of a co-surgeon model increased the surgeon personnel costs relative to the single-surgeon model, according to Mericli et al ($2507.7 ± $52.27 versus $2148.9 ± $85.3; P < 0.001).…”

Section: Cost Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value of a Co-surgeon in Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Escandón,

Mascaro-Pankova,

DellaCroce

et al. 2024

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary: Using a co-surgeon model has been suggested to improve perioperative outcomes and reduce the risk of complications. Therefore, we evaluated if a co-surgeon model compared with a single microsurgeon model could decrease the surgical time, length of stay, rate of complications, and healthcare-associated costs in adult patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction (MBR). A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies evaluating the perioperative outcomes and complications of MBR using a single-surgeon model and co-surgeon model were included. A random-effects model was fitted to the data. Seven retrospective comparative studies were included. Ultimately, 1411 patients (48.23%) underwent MBR using a single-surgeon model, representing 2339 flaps (48.42%). On the other hand, 1514 patients (51.77%) underwent MBR using a co-surgeon model, representing 2492 flaps (51.58%). The surgical time was significantly reduced using a co-surgeon model in all studies compared with a single-surgeon model. The length of stay was reduced using a co-surgeon model compared with a single-surgeon model in all but one study. The log odds ratio (log-OR) of recipient site infection (log-OR = −0.227; P = 0.6509), wound disruption (log-OR = −0.012; P = 0.9735), hematoma (log-OR = 0.061; P = 0.8683), and seroma (log-OR = −0.742; P = 0.1106) did not significantly decrease with the incorporation of a co-surgeon compared with a single-surgeon model. Incorporating a co-surgeon model for MBR has minimal impact on the rates of surgical site complications compared with a single-surgeon model. However, a co-surgeon optimized efficacy and reduced the surgical time and length of stay.

show abstract

“…Une technique bien maîtrisée et une symétrisation faite d'emblée permettent d'espérer une reconstruction en un temps avec une réfection secondaire du complexe aréolo-mammelonnaire sous anesthésie locale. Le bon maintien de la prothèse par le soutiengorge dorsal assure une stabilité de forme et une satisfaction durables [9]. Le moment venu, le changement de prothèse sera aisé.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Reconstruction mammaire par lambeau musculocutané de grand dorsal avec prothèse : la technique du soutien-gorge dorsal

Bruant-Rodier¹,

Chiriac²,

Baratte³

et al. 2016

Annales de Chirurgie Plastique Esthétique

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quel est le palmarès des techniques de reconstruction mammaire à long terme ?

Cited by 27 publications

References 24 publications

Impact of Age, Obesity and Smoking on Patient Satisfaction with Breast Implant Surgery – A Unicentric Analysis of 318 Implant Reconstructions after Mastectomy

Impact of Age, Obesity and Smoking on Patient Satisfaction with Breast Implant Surgery – A Unicentric Analysis of 318 Implant Reconstructions after Mastectomy

The Value of a Co-surgeon in Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Reconstruction mammaire par lambeau musculocutané de grand dorsal avec prothèse : la technique du soutien-gorge dorsal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About