降低非遗传风险乳房切除术的技术和并发症:法国国家妇产科医师学会(CNGOF)指南

C Mathelin , E Barranger , M Boisserie-Lacroix , G Boutet , S Brousse , N Chabbert-Buffet , C Coutant , E Daraï , Y Delpech , M Duraes , M Espié , F Golfier , AS Hamy , E Kermarrec , V Lavoué , M Lodi , É Luporsi , C Maugard , S Molière , JY Seror , X Fritel
{"title":"降低非遗传风险乳房切除术的技术和并发症:法国国家妇产科医师学会(CNGOF)指南","authors":"C Mathelin ,&nbsp;E Barranger ,&nbsp;M Boisserie-Lacroix ,&nbsp;G Boutet ,&nbsp;S Brousse ,&nbsp;N Chabbert-Buffet ,&nbsp;C Coutant ,&nbsp;E Daraï ,&nbsp;Y Delpech ,&nbsp;M Duraes ,&nbsp;M Espié ,&nbsp;F Golfier ,&nbsp;AS Hamy ,&nbsp;E Kermarrec ,&nbsp;V Lavoué ,&nbsp;M Lodi ,&nbsp;É Luporsi ,&nbsp;C Maugard ,&nbsp;S Molière ,&nbsp;JY Seror ,&nbsp;X Fritel","doi":"10.1016/j.ibreh.2024.100002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Based on an updated review of the international literature covering the different surgical techniques and complications of risk reducing mastectomies (RRM) in non-genetic context, the Commission of Senology of the College National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) aimed to establish guidelines on techniques to be chosen and their implementation.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>The CNGOF Commission of Senology, composed of 24 experts, developed these guidelines. A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied throughout the process of making the recommendations. Similarly, the development of these recommendations did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product. The Commission of Senology adhered to and followed the AGREE II (Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making recommendations in the presence of poor quality or insufficient evidence were highlighted.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Commission of Senology considered 6 questions in 4 thematic areas, focusing on oncologic safety, risk of complications, aesthetic satisfaction and psychological impact, and preoperative modalities.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The application of the GRADE method resulted in 7 recommendations, 6 with a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 1 with a low level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There was significant agreement among the Commission of Senology members on recommendations for preferred surgical techniques and practical implementation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100675,"journal":{"name":"Innovative Practice in Breast Health","volume":"1 ","pages":"Article 100002"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950212824000022/pdfft?md5=86f0c5109f141e592d5d10a8d5c1f9bd&pid=1-s2.0-S2950212824000022-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Techniques and complications of non-genetic risk reducing mastectomies: Guidelines of the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)\",\"authors\":\"C Mathelin ,&nbsp;E Barranger ,&nbsp;M Boisserie-Lacroix ,&nbsp;G Boutet ,&nbsp;S Brousse ,&nbsp;N Chabbert-Buffet ,&nbsp;C Coutant ,&nbsp;E Daraï ,&nbsp;Y Delpech ,&nbsp;M Duraes ,&nbsp;M Espié ,&nbsp;F Golfier ,&nbsp;AS Hamy ,&nbsp;E Kermarrec ,&nbsp;V Lavoué ,&nbsp;M Lodi ,&nbsp;É Luporsi ,&nbsp;C Maugard ,&nbsp;S Molière ,&nbsp;JY Seror ,&nbsp;X Fritel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ibreh.2024.100002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Based on an updated review of the international literature covering the different surgical techniques and complications of risk reducing mastectomies (RRM) in non-genetic context, the Commission of Senology of the College National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) aimed to establish guidelines on techniques to be chosen and their implementation.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>The CNGOF Commission of Senology, composed of 24 experts, developed these guidelines. A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied throughout the process of making the recommendations. Similarly, the development of these recommendations did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product. The Commission of Senology adhered to and followed the AGREE II (Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making recommendations in the presence of poor quality or insufficient evidence were highlighted.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Commission of Senology considered 6 questions in 4 thematic areas, focusing on oncologic safety, risk of complications, aesthetic satisfaction and psychological impact, and preoperative modalities.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The application of the GRADE method resulted in 7 recommendations, 6 with a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 1 with a low level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There was significant agreement among the Commission of Senology members on recommendations for preferred surgical techniques and practical implementation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovative Practice in Breast Health\",\"volume\":\"1 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100002\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950212824000022/pdfft?md5=86f0c5109f141e592d5d10a8d5c1f9bd&pid=1-s2.0-S2950212824000022-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovative Practice in Breast Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950212824000022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovative Practice in Breast Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950212824000022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的法国国立妇产科学院(CNGOF)森学委员会根据对国际文献的最新回顾,研究了非遗传情况下降低风险乳房切除术(RRM)的不同手术技术和并发症,旨在制定有关技术选择及其实施的指南。在制定建议的整个过程中,采用了利益关系申报和监督政策。同样,在制定这些建议的过程中,也没有得到任何保健品销售公司的资助。森学委员会坚持并遵循 AGREE II(推进医疗指南的制定、报告和评估)标准和建议评估、制定和评价分级法(GRADE)来评估建议所依据的证据的质量。方法神学委员会审议了 4 个专题领域的 6 个问题,重点是肿瘤安全性、并发症风险、美学满意度和心理影响以及术前方式。结果应用 GRADE 方法得出了 7 项建议,其中 6 项证据水平较高(GRADE 1+/-),1 项证据水平较低(GRADE 2+/-)。结论神学委员会成员对首选手术技术和实际实施的建议达成了重大共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Techniques and complications of non-genetic risk reducing mastectomies: Guidelines of the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)

Techniques and complications of non-genetic risk reducing mastectomies: Guidelines of the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)

Objective

Based on an updated review of the international literature covering the different surgical techniques and complications of risk reducing mastectomies (RRM) in non-genetic context, the Commission of Senology of the College National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) aimed to establish guidelines on techniques to be chosen and their implementation.

Design

The CNGOF Commission of Senology, composed of 24 experts, developed these guidelines. A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied throughout the process of making the recommendations. Similarly, the development of these recommendations did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product. The Commission of Senology adhered to and followed the AGREE II (Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making recommendations in the presence of poor quality or insufficient evidence were highlighted.

Methods

The Commission of Senology considered 6 questions in 4 thematic areas, focusing on oncologic safety, risk of complications, aesthetic satisfaction and psychological impact, and preoperative modalities.

Results

The application of the GRADE method resulted in 7 recommendations, 6 with a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 1 with a low level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-).

Conclusion

There was significant agreement among the Commission of Senology members on recommendations for preferred surgical techniques and practical implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信