Autologous Breast Reconstruction Skin Paddle Designs: Classification and Aesthetic Outcomes

I. Pestana, N. Walker
{"title":"Autologous Breast Reconstruction Skin Paddle Designs: Classification and Aesthetic Outcomes","authors":"I. Pestana, N. Walker","doi":"10.1055/s-0039-1688725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective Present study was conducted to identify common mastectomy patterns and autologous skin paddle designs, to identify patient characteristics that influence these patterns, and assess aesthetic outcomes associated with each pattern. Methods Autologous breast reconstructions over 5 years were reviewed. Mastectomy type and resultant skin paddle were categorized into four mastectomy type/skin paddle design groups based on the amount of native “Skin Spared” after mastectomy and the resultant flap skin paddle designed. Groups were designated as skin-sparing mastectomy 1 (SS1)/large elliptical skin paddle, skin-sparing mastectomy 2 (SS2)/small elliptical skin paddle, skin-sparing mastectomy 3 (SS3)/areola skin paddle, and skin-sparing mastectomy 4 (nipple-sparing mastectomy, SS4)/no skin paddle. Surveys were performed to validate the classification system and critique aesthetic outcomes. Results A total of 89 autologous breast reconstructions were included. Radiotherapy was used in 45.6% of SS1 patients versus 29.2% in SS2 and 12.5% in SS3/SS4. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 in SS1/SS2 and 26 in SS3/SS4 mastectomy types (p = 0.045). Delayed reconstruction was performed in 96.5% SS1 versus 62.5% in SS2 and only 25% of SS3/SS4 (p < 0.0001). Physicians and Non-MD personnel correctly categorized 85.8 and 76.1% of skin paddle designs, respectively. Over 75% of those surveyed rated the reconstruction aesthetic outcome as “good-excellent” regardless of the pattern group. Conclusions Patients in SS1/SS2 groups had a higher incidence of radiotherapy, delayed reconstruction, and higher BMI compared with the SS3/SS4 groups. The classification system is recognizable and may provide improved patient education and communication between healthcare providers. All mastectomy type/skin paddle designs received high aesthetic ratings.","PeriodicalId":34024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Open","volume":"04 1","pages":"e29 - e35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0039-1688725","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1688725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Objective Present study was conducted to identify common mastectomy patterns and autologous skin paddle designs, to identify patient characteristics that influence these patterns, and assess aesthetic outcomes associated with each pattern. Methods Autologous breast reconstructions over 5 years were reviewed. Mastectomy type and resultant skin paddle were categorized into four mastectomy type/skin paddle design groups based on the amount of native “Skin Spared” after mastectomy and the resultant flap skin paddle designed. Groups were designated as skin-sparing mastectomy 1 (SS1)/large elliptical skin paddle, skin-sparing mastectomy 2 (SS2)/small elliptical skin paddle, skin-sparing mastectomy 3 (SS3)/areola skin paddle, and skin-sparing mastectomy 4 (nipple-sparing mastectomy, SS4)/no skin paddle. Surveys were performed to validate the classification system and critique aesthetic outcomes. Results A total of 89 autologous breast reconstructions were included. Radiotherapy was used in 45.6% of SS1 patients versus 29.2% in SS2 and 12.5% in SS3/SS4. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 in SS1/SS2 and 26 in SS3/SS4 mastectomy types (p = 0.045). Delayed reconstruction was performed in 96.5% SS1 versus 62.5% in SS2 and only 25% of SS3/SS4 (p < 0.0001). Physicians and Non-MD personnel correctly categorized 85.8 and 76.1% of skin paddle designs, respectively. Over 75% of those surveyed rated the reconstruction aesthetic outcome as “good-excellent” regardless of the pattern group. Conclusions Patients in SS1/SS2 groups had a higher incidence of radiotherapy, delayed reconstruction, and higher BMI compared with the SS3/SS4 groups. The classification system is recognizable and may provide improved patient education and communication between healthcare providers. All mastectomy type/skin paddle designs received high aesthetic ratings.
自体乳房重建皮肤桨设计:分类和美学结果
抽象目标 本研究旨在确定常见的乳房切除术模式和自体皮肤桨设计,确定影响这些模式的患者特征,并评估与每种模式相关的美学结果。方法 回顾了5年来自体乳房重建的情况。根据乳房切除术后天然“皮肤稀疏”的数量和设计的皮瓣皮肤桨,将乳房切除术类型和由此产生的皮肤桨分为四个乳房切除术/皮肤桨设计组。组被指定为保留皮肤乳房切除术1(SS1)/大椭圆形皮肤桨、保留皮肤乳腺切除术2(SS2)/小椭圆形皮肤桨,保留皮肤乳乳房切除术3(SS3)/乳晕皮肤桨和保留皮肤乳乳切除术4(保留乳头乳房切除术,SS4)/无皮肤桨。进行调查以验证分类系统并对美学结果进行评判。后果 共包括89个自体乳房重建。45.6%的SS1患者使用了放射治疗,而SS2患者为29.2%,SS3/SS4患者为12.5%。SS1/SS2乳房切除术的平均体重指数(BMI)为30,SS3/SS4乳房切除术为26(p = 96.5%的SS1患者进行了延迟重建,而SS2患者为62.5%,SS3/SS4患者仅为25%(p < 0.0001)。医生和非医学博士人员分别对85.8%和76.1%的皮肤桨设计进行了正确分类。超过75%的受访者将重建美学结果评为“良好-优秀”,无论图案组如何。结论 与SS3/SS4组相比,SS1/SS2组的患者放疗发生率更高,重建延迟,BMI更高。分类系统是可识别的,并且可以提供改进的患者教育和医疗保健提供者之间的通信。所有乳房切除术类型/皮肤桨设计都获得了很高的美学评价。
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
6
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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