Have We Really Shifted to an Evidence-Based Practice? A Qualitative Analysis of Primary Breast Augmentation.

Eplasty Pub Date : 2024-09-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
Esteban Elena Scarafoni, Carlos Augusto Cutini Cingozoglu
{"title":"Have We Really Shifted to an Evidence-Based Practice? A Qualitative Analysis of Primary Breast Augmentation.","authors":"Esteban Elena Scarafoni, Carlos Augusto Cutini Cingozoglu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary breast augmentation remains the most frequently performed aesthetic surgery worldwide. Advances in this surgery have been incredible, not only from a surgical technique point of view but also since the appearance of new technologies and the better understanding of the interactions between the patient, the breast implant, the usual bacterial flora, and surgical maneuvers. However, there are still several instances of surgical procedure or postoperative medical indications that differ remarkably from one surgeon to another and may even be totally opposite. Due to the lack of a clinical practice guide for performing a primary augmentation mastoplasty, it is important to compare surgeon's procedures and decisions with scientific evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymous survey composed of 25 multiple choice questions was designed to assess current practice in primary breast augmentation among active members of the Argentinian Society of Plastic Surgery. In January 2020, it was distributed via email. The results of the surveys were compiled by 2 independent reviewers and contrasted with current medical evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 146 surveys were completed by members of the Argentinian Society of Plastic Surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many differences were found in the behavior of the surgeons surveyed, as well as a lack of correlation between the evidence based on medicine and the usual medical practices or indications. These results should serve as the basis for the realization of a clinical practice guide from a scientific society of plastic surgeons.</p>","PeriodicalId":93993,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":"24 ","pages":"e52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520359/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Primary breast augmentation remains the most frequently performed aesthetic surgery worldwide. Advances in this surgery have been incredible, not only from a surgical technique point of view but also since the appearance of new technologies and the better understanding of the interactions between the patient, the breast implant, the usual bacterial flora, and surgical maneuvers. However, there are still several instances of surgical procedure or postoperative medical indications that differ remarkably from one surgeon to another and may even be totally opposite. Due to the lack of a clinical practice guide for performing a primary augmentation mastoplasty, it is important to compare surgeon's procedures and decisions with scientific evidence.

Methods: An anonymous survey composed of 25 multiple choice questions was designed to assess current practice in primary breast augmentation among active members of the Argentinian Society of Plastic Surgery. In January 2020, it was distributed via email. The results of the surveys were compiled by 2 independent reviewers and contrasted with current medical evidence.

Results: A total of 146 surveys were completed by members of the Argentinian Society of Plastic Surgery.

Conclusion: Many differences were found in the behavior of the surgeons surveyed, as well as a lack of correlation between the evidence based on medicine and the usual medical practices or indications. These results should serve as the basis for the realization of a clinical practice guide from a scientific society of plastic surgeons.

我们真的转向循证实践了吗?一次隆胸手术的定性分析。
背景:初次隆胸仍然是全世界最常见的美容手术。不仅从手术技术的角度来看,而且由于新技术的出现以及对患者、乳房假体、常见细菌菌群和手术操作之间相互作用的更好理解,这种手术的进展令人难以置信。然而,不同外科医生的手术方法或术后医疗指征仍有明显差异,甚至可能完全相反。由于缺乏乳腺增生整形手术的临床实践指南,因此将外科医生的手术方法和决定与科学证据进行比较非常重要:方法:为评估阿根廷整形外科学会活跃会员在初次隆胸术中的现行做法,我们设计了一份由 25 道选择题组成的匿名调查。该调查于 2020 年 1 月通过电子邮件发放。调查结果由两名独立审查员汇总,并与当前的医学证据进行对比:阿根廷整形外科学会会员共完成了 146 份调查问卷:结论:接受调查的外科医生的行为存在许多差异,医学证据与通常的医疗实践或适应症之间也缺乏相关性。这些结果应作为整形外科医生科学协会实现临床实践指南的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信