We have located links that may give you full text access.
Inframammary Fold Approach for Second-stage Operation in Expander-Implant Breast Reconstruction.
Annals of Plastic Surgery 2021 November 2
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite expander-based breast reconstruction being used as a reliable reconstruction method, implant removal due to wound dehiscence and infection still occurs in 0.5% to 15% of cases. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the new inframammary fold (IMF) incision approach with previous incision in second-stage operation of expander-based 2-stage breast reconstruction.
METHODS: Patients who underwent expander-based 2-stage breast reconstruction between February 2014 and May 2019 were included. After expander inflation, patients undergoing second-stage reconstruction were divided into the previous incision and IMF incision groups and their outcomes were compared. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare postoperative 1-year results.
RESULTS: The previous incision and IMF incision groups comprised 79 and 31 patients, respectively. There were no intergroup differences in general demographics or intraoperative data, except for total inflation volume (426.87 ± 102.63 mL in the previous incision group and 375.48 ± 94.10 mL in the IMF incision group, P = 0.017). Wound dehiscence occurred in 12 and 0 cases in the previous and IMF incision groups, respectively (P = 0.018). Implant removal was performed due to dehiscence in 9 cases (8.18%) and 0 cases (0%) in the previous and IMF incision groups, respectively (P = 0.049). In 1-to-1 propensity score matching analysis, the IMF incision group showed better results at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio: 0, 95% confidence interval: 0-1.09; P = 0.063).
CONCLUSIONS: The IMF approach is a safe method for replacing the expander with an implant, with lower incidence of wound dehiscence and implant explantation.
METHODS: Patients who underwent expander-based 2-stage breast reconstruction between February 2014 and May 2019 were included. After expander inflation, patients undergoing second-stage reconstruction were divided into the previous incision and IMF incision groups and their outcomes were compared. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare postoperative 1-year results.
RESULTS: The previous incision and IMF incision groups comprised 79 and 31 patients, respectively. There were no intergroup differences in general demographics or intraoperative data, except for total inflation volume (426.87 ± 102.63 mL in the previous incision group and 375.48 ± 94.10 mL in the IMF incision group, P = 0.017). Wound dehiscence occurred in 12 and 0 cases in the previous and IMF incision groups, respectively (P = 0.018). Implant removal was performed due to dehiscence in 9 cases (8.18%) and 0 cases (0%) in the previous and IMF incision groups, respectively (P = 0.049). In 1-to-1 propensity score matching analysis, the IMF incision group showed better results at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio: 0, 95% confidence interval: 0-1.09; P = 0.063).
CONCLUSIONS: The IMF approach is a safe method for replacing the expander with an implant, with lower incidence of wound dehiscence and implant explantation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app