Improved Recovery Experience Achieved for Women Undergoing Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Model
Dumestre, D et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 550–559
Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery was compared with traditional recovery after surgery for postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction.
Methods: Length of stay, emergency room visits, and complications within 30 days of surgery were compared among three groups: traditional recovery after surgery, transition (some elements of enhanced recovery protocol, not transitioned to outpatient care), and enhanced recovery after surgery (day surgery, provided with standardized perioperative education and multimodal analgesia). Prospective data collection allowed quality-of-recovery assessment using a validated questionnaire for enhanced recovery/transition groups. Results were statistically analyzed (analysis of variance/chi-square).
Results: The traditional recovery, transition, and enhanced recovery cohorts comprised 29, 11, and 29 patients, respectively. No significant differences were present regarding age, smoking status, preoperative radiation, single stage direct-to-implant versus tissue expander, bilateral versus unilateral surgery, or immediate versus delayed reconstruction among groups. Average length of stay was 1.6 nights in both the traditional recovery and transition groups, compared with 0 nights in the enhanced recovery group (p < 0.001). Enhanced recovery patients had less severe pain (p = 0.02) and nausea (p = 0.01), and better enjoyed their food (p = 0.0002) and felt more rested (p = 0.02) than their transition counterparts. There were no differences in the number of emergency room visits among the three groups (p = 0.88). There was no difference in the rate of hematoma (p = 0.36), infection requiring intravenous antibiotics (p = 0.36), or infection requiring explantation (p = 0.36) among the three groups. Conclusion: An enhanced recovery protocol for alloplastic breast reconstruction treated patients safely, with improved patient satisfaction and same-day discharge and with no increase in complications.
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Hidalgo, DA. Weinstein, AL.
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 587–596
Background: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether anatomical implants are aesthetically superior to round implants in breast augmentation.
Methods: Seventy-five patients undergoing primary breast augmentation had a round silicone implant of optimal volume, projection, and diameter placed in one breast and an anatomical silicone device of similar volume and optimal shape placed in the other. After intraoperative photographs were taken, the anatomical device was replaced by a round implant to complete the procedure. A survey designed to measure breast aesthetics was administered to 10 plastic surgeon and 10 lay reviewers for blind evaluation of the 75 cases.
Results: No observable difference in breast aesthetics between anatomical and round implants was reported by plastic surgeons in 43.6 percent or by lay individuals in 29.2 percent of cases. When a difference was perceived, neither plastic surgeons nor lay individuals preferred the anatomical side more often than the round side. Plastic surgeons judged the anatomical side superior in 51.1 percent of cases and the round side superior in 48.9 percent of cases (p = 0.496). Lay individuals judged the anatomical side superior in 46.7 percent of cases and the round side superior in 53.3 percent (p = 0.140). Plastic surgeons identified implant shape correctly in only 26.5 percent of cases. Conclusions: This study provides high-level evidence supporting no aesthetic superiority of anatomical over round implants. Given that anatomical implants have important and unique disadvantages, a lack of proven aesthetic superiority argues against their continued use in breast augmentation.
Hidalgo, DA. Weinstein, AL.
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 587–596
Background: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether anatomical implants are aesthetically superior to round implants in breast augmentation.
Methods: Seventy-five patients undergoing primary breast augmentation had a round silicone implant of optimal volume, projection, and diameter placed in one breast and an anatomical silicone device of similar volume and optimal shape placed in the other. After intraoperative photographs were taken, the anatomical device was replaced by a round implant to complete the procedure. A survey designed to measure breast aesthetics was administered to 10 plastic surgeon and 10 lay reviewers for blind evaluation of the 75 cases.
Results: No observable difference in breast aesthetics between anatomical and round implants was reported by plastic surgeons in 43.6 percent or by lay individuals in 29.2 percent of cases. When a difference was perceived, neither plastic surgeons nor lay individuals preferred the anatomical side more often than the round side. Plastic surgeons judged the anatomical side superior in 51.1 percent of cases and the round side superior in 48.9 percent of cases (p = 0.496). Lay individuals judged the anatomical side superior in 46.7 percent of cases and the round side superior in 53.3 percent (p = 0.140). Plastic surgeons identified implant shape correctly in only 26.5 percent of cases. Conclusions: This study provides high-level evidence supporting no aesthetic superiority of anatomical over round implants. Given that anatomical implants have important and unique disadvantages, a lack of proven aesthetic superiority argues against their continued use in breast augmentation.
Comparison of Different Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Reconstruction: The 50/50 Study
Comparison of Different Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Reconstruction: The 50/50 Study
Pittman, T et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 521–528
Background: Acellular dermal matrix has enjoyed extensive use in primary and secondary alloplastic breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. The objective of this study was to examine clinical outcomes between available acellular dermal matrix products: DermACELL (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, Va.) and AlloDerm Ready To Use (LifeCell Corp., Branchburg, N.J.).
Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on 58 consecutive patients (100 breasts) reconstructed with either DermACELL (n = 30 patients; 50 breasts) or AlloDerm Ready To Use (n = 28 patients; 50 breasts). The mastectomies were performed by three different breast surgeons. All reconstructions were performed by the same plastic surgeon (T.A.P.). Statistical analysis was performed by means of Fisher’s exact test.
Results: Differences in the average age, body mass index, percentage having neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or breast irradiation, and numbers of therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomies between the two groups were not statistically significant (p < 0.05). Complications in both cohorts of patients were clinically recorded for 90 days after immediate reconstruction. When comparing outcomes, patients in the DermACELL group had a significantly lower incidence of “red breast syndrome” (0 percent versus 26 percent; p = 0.0001) and fewer days before drain removal (15.8 days versus 20.6 days; p = 0.017). No significant differences were seen in terms of seroma, hematoma, delayed healing, infection, flap necrosis, or explantation.
Conclusion: Patients reconstructed with DermACELL as compared with AlloDerm Ready To Use have significantly decreased number of days to drain removal and red breast syndrome and equivalent rates of other complications, including seroma, infection, flap necrosis, and explantation.
Pittman, T et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 521–528
Background: Acellular dermal matrix has enjoyed extensive use in primary and secondary alloplastic breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. The objective of this study was to examine clinical outcomes between available acellular dermal matrix products: DermACELL (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, Va.) and AlloDerm Ready To Use (LifeCell Corp., Branchburg, N.J.).
Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on 58 consecutive patients (100 breasts) reconstructed with either DermACELL (n = 30 patients; 50 breasts) or AlloDerm Ready To Use (n = 28 patients; 50 breasts). The mastectomies were performed by three different breast surgeons. All reconstructions were performed by the same plastic surgeon (T.A.P.). Statistical analysis was performed by means of Fisher’s exact test.
Results: Differences in the average age, body mass index, percentage having neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or breast irradiation, and numbers of therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomies between the two groups were not statistically significant (p < 0.05). Complications in both cohorts of patients were clinically recorded for 90 days after immediate reconstruction. When comparing outcomes, patients in the DermACELL group had a significantly lower incidence of “red breast syndrome” (0 percent versus 26 percent; p = 0.0001) and fewer days before drain removal (15.8 days versus 20.6 days; p = 0.017). No significant differences were seen in terms of seroma, hematoma, delayed healing, infection, flap necrosis, or explantation.
Conclusion: Patients reconstructed with DermACELL as compared with AlloDerm Ready To Use have significantly decreased number of days to drain removal and red breast syndrome and equivalent rates of other complications, including seroma, infection, flap necrosis, and explantation.
Feasibility of magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer
Feasibility of magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer
Schermers B et al
The Breast, June 2017Volume 33, Pages 50–56
Accurate tumour localisation is essential for breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable tumours. Current localisation technologies are associated with disadvantages such as logistical challenges and migration issues (wire guided localisation) or legislative complexities and high administrative burden (radioactive localisation). We present MAgnetic MArker LOCalisation (MaMaLoc), a novel technology that aims to overcome these disadvantages using a magnetic marker and a magnetic detection probe. This feasibility study reports on the first experience with this new technology for breast cancer localisation.
Schermers B et al
The Breast, June 2017Volume 33, Pages 50–56
Accurate tumour localisation is essential for breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable tumours. Current localisation technologies are associated with disadvantages such as logistical challenges and migration issues (wire guided localisation) or legislative complexities and high administrative burden (radioactive localisation). We present MAgnetic MArker LOCalisation (MaMaLoc), a novel technology that aims to overcome these disadvantages using a magnetic marker and a magnetic detection probe. This feasibility study reports on the first experience with this new technology for breast cancer localisation.
Axillary reverse mapping in N0 patients requiring sentinel lymph node biopsy – A systematic review of the literature and necessity of a randomised study
Axillary reverse mapping in N0 patients requiring sentinel lymph node biopsy – A systematic review of the literature and necessity of a randomised study
Parks RM, Cheung KL
The Breast, June 2017 Volume 33, Pages 57–70
Axillary reverse mapping (ARM) is a technique to map and preserve arm lymphatics which may be damaged during surgery, resulting in lymphoedema.This work systematically reviews the incidence of lymphoedema following sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) + ARM, compared to SLNB alone, for clinically node negative disease, as well as recurrence rate, other morbidity and the feasibility and difficulties of ARM.
Parks RM, Cheung KL
The Breast, June 2017 Volume 33, Pages 57–70
Axillary reverse mapping (ARM) is a technique to map and preserve arm lymphatics which may be damaged during surgery, resulting in lymphoedema.This work systematically reviews the incidence of lymphoedema following sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) + ARM, compared to SLNB alone, for clinically node negative disease, as well as recurrence rate, other morbidity and the feasibility and difficulties of ARM.
Surgeon performed continuous intraoperative ultrasound guidance decreases re-excisions and mastectomy rates in breast cancer
Surgeon performed continuous intraoperative ultrasound guidance decreases re-excisions and mastectomy rates in breast cancer
Cakmaket KG al
The Breast, June 2017Volume 33, Pages 23–28
Intraoperative ultrasound guided (IUG) breast conserving surgery (BCS) is being increasingly embraced by breast surgeons worldwide. We aimed to compare the efficacy of IUG-BCS for palpable and nonpalpable breast cancer with respect to margin status, re-excision rate, tissue sacrifice and cost-time analysis.
Cakmaket KG al
The Breast, June 2017Volume 33, Pages 23–28
Intraoperative ultrasound guided (IUG) breast conserving surgery (BCS) is being increasingly embraced by breast surgeons worldwide. We aimed to compare the efficacy of IUG-BCS for palpable and nonpalpable breast cancer with respect to margin status, re-excision rate, tissue sacrifice and cost-time analysis.
Multidetector CT improving surgical outcomes in breast cancer (MISO-BC): A randomised controlled trial
Multidetector CT improving surgical outcomes in breast cancer (MISO-BC): A randomised controlled trial
Cox J et al
The Breast, April 2017 Volume 32, Pages 217–224
CT scan-guided care did not result in a change in the number of patients requiring a second operation; similar numbers of patients needed further axillary surgery in both groups. New diagnostic imaging technologies regularly enter NHS centres. It is important these are evaluated rigorously before becoming routine care.
Cox J et al
The Breast, April 2017 Volume 32, Pages 217–224
CT scan-guided care did not result in a change in the number of patients requiring a second operation; similar numbers of patients needed further axillary surgery in both groups. New diagnostic imaging technologies regularly enter NHS centres. It is important these are evaluated rigorously before becoming routine care.
Cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing surgeries in preventing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
Cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing surgeries in preventing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
Schrauder MG et al
The Breast, April 2017Volume 32, Pages 186–191
Risk-reducing surgeries are a feasible option for mitigating the risk in individuals with inherited susceptibility to cancer, but are the procedures cost-effective in the current health-care system in Germany? This study compared the health-care costs for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and risk-reducing (bilateral) salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) with cancer treatment costs that could potentially be prevented.
Schrauder MG et al
The Breast, April 2017Volume 32, Pages 186–191
Risk-reducing surgeries are a feasible option for mitigating the risk in individuals with inherited susceptibility to cancer, but are the procedures cost-effective in the current health-care system in Germany? This study compared the health-care costs for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and risk-reducing (bilateral) salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) with cancer treatment costs that could potentially be prevented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)