双侧 DIEP 和 TRAM 皮瓣用于乳房重建后,腹壁肌肉力量、耐力和运动控制力是否有差异?

Eplasty Pub Date : 2024-05-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
Amra Olafson, Nicole K Le, Lokesh Coomar, Grace Jacobs, Paul Smith, Nazanin Khakpour, Ambuj Kumar, Douglas Haladay, Deniz Dayicioglu
{"title":"双侧 DIEP 和 TRAM 皮瓣用于乳房重建后,腹壁肌肉力量、耐力和运动控制力是否有差异?","authors":"Amra Olafson, Nicole K Le, Lokesh Coomar, Grace Jacobs, Paul Smith, Nazanin Khakpour, Ambuj Kumar, Douglas Haladay, Deniz Dayicioglu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Abdominal donor site complications in bilateral pedicled transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) have been a concern when compared with bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. This study aimed to assess the strength, endurance, and motor control in patients undergoing DIEP and TRAM flaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, cohort study was performed at a single institution including patients who underwent pedicled TRAM and DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy from August 2017 to August 2018. Patients underwent pre- and postoperative testing involving rectus abdominis, prone plank, side bridge, and trunk flexor tests. Descriptive analyses and multivariate linear regressions were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final analysis included a total of 9 patients, 4 of whom underwent TRAM flap reconstruction while 5 underwent DIEP flap reconstruction. The tests were not statistically significant between the TRAM versus DIEP groups, including rectus abdominis mean time decrease (0.25 vs 0.60 sec, <i>P</i> = .51), prone plank time increase (1.38 vs 1.38 sec, <i>P</i> = .51), right side bridge time increase (7.54 sec vs 32.15 sec, <i>P</i> = 1.00), left side bridge time increase (2.14 vs 44.5 sec, <i>P</i> = .37), and trunk flexor time decrease (4.68 vs 1.68 sec, <i>P</i> = .44). Overall complications were similar between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No significant difference in abdominal donor site morbidity was found when comparing the 2 groups. This article provides a point of conversation with patients when discussing available reconstruction options.</p>","PeriodicalId":93993,"journal":{"name":"Eplasty","volume":"24 ","pages":"e30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11155377/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is There a Difference in Abdominal Wall Muscle Strength, Endurance, and Motor Control Following Bilateral DIEP and TRAM Flaps for Breast Reconstruction?\",\"authors\":\"Amra Olafson, Nicole K Le, Lokesh Coomar, Grace Jacobs, Paul Smith, Nazanin Khakpour, Ambuj Kumar, Douglas Haladay, Deniz Dayicioglu\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Abdominal donor site complications in bilateral pedicled transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) have been a concern when compared with bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. This study aimed to assess the strength, endurance, and motor control in patients undergoing DIEP and TRAM flaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, cohort study was performed at a single institution including patients who underwent pedicled TRAM and DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy from August 2017 to August 2018. Patients underwent pre- and postoperative testing involving rectus abdominis, prone plank, side bridge, and trunk flexor tests. Descriptive analyses and multivariate linear regressions were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final analysis included a total of 9 patients, 4 of whom underwent TRAM flap reconstruction while 5 underwent DIEP flap reconstruction. The tests were not statistically significant between the TRAM versus DIEP groups, including rectus abdominis mean time decrease (0.25 vs 0.60 sec, <i>P</i> = .51), prone plank time increase (1.38 vs 1.38 sec, <i>P</i> = .51), right side bridge time increase (7.54 sec vs 32.15 sec, <i>P</i> = 1.00), left side bridge time increase (2.14 vs 44.5 sec, <i>P</i> = .37), and trunk flexor time decrease (4.68 vs 1.68 sec, <i>P</i> = .44). Overall complications were similar between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No significant difference in abdominal donor site morbidity was found when comparing the 2 groups. This article provides a point of conversation with patients when discussing available reconstruction options.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eplasty\",\"volume\":\"24 \",\"pages\":\"e30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11155377/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}","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

摘要

背景:与双侧深下上腹肌穿孔器(DIEP)皮瓣乳房重建术相比,双侧有蒂腹横直肌(TRAM)皮瓣乳房重建术的腹部供体部位并发症一直备受关注。本研究旨在评估接受 DIEP 和 TRAM 皮瓣手术的患者的力量、耐力和运动控制能力:2017年8月至2018年8月,在一家医疗机构进行了一项前瞻性队列研究,包括乳房切除术后接受有蒂TRAM和DIEP皮瓣重建术的患者。患者接受了术前和术后测试,包括腹直肌、俯卧平板、侧桥和躯干屈伸测试。进行了描述性分析和多变量线性回归:最终分析共包括9名患者,其中4人接受了TRAM皮瓣重建术,5人接受了DIEP皮瓣重建术。TRAM组与DIEP组之间的测试结果无统计学意义,包括腹直肌平均时间减少(0.25 vs 0.60秒,P = .51)、俯卧平板时间增加(1.38 vs 1.38 秒,P = .51),右侧桥式时间增加(7.54 秒 vs 32.15 秒,P = 1.00),左侧桥式时间增加(2.14 vs 44.5 秒,P = .37),躯干屈伸时间减少(4.68 vs 1.68 秒,P = .44)。两组的总体并发症相似:结论:比较两组患者,腹部供体部位发病率无明显差异。这篇文章为与患者讨论可用的重建方案提供了一个对话点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is There a Difference in Abdominal Wall Muscle Strength, Endurance, and Motor Control Following Bilateral DIEP and TRAM Flaps for Breast Reconstruction?

Background: Abdominal donor site complications in bilateral pedicled transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) have been a concern when compared with bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. This study aimed to assess the strength, endurance, and motor control in patients undergoing DIEP and TRAM flaps.

Methods: A prospective, cohort study was performed at a single institution including patients who underwent pedicled TRAM and DIEP flap reconstruction after mastectomy from August 2017 to August 2018. Patients underwent pre- and postoperative testing involving rectus abdominis, prone plank, side bridge, and trunk flexor tests. Descriptive analyses and multivariate linear regressions were performed.

Results: The final analysis included a total of 9 patients, 4 of whom underwent TRAM flap reconstruction while 5 underwent DIEP flap reconstruction. The tests were not statistically significant between the TRAM versus DIEP groups, including rectus abdominis mean time decrease (0.25 vs 0.60 sec, P = .51), prone plank time increase (1.38 vs 1.38 sec, P = .51), right side bridge time increase (7.54 sec vs 32.15 sec, P = 1.00), left side bridge time increase (2.14 vs 44.5 sec, P = .37), and trunk flexor time decrease (4.68 vs 1.68 sec, P = .44). Overall complications were similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: No significant difference in abdominal donor site morbidity was found when comparing the 2 groups. This article provides a point of conversation with patients when discussing available reconstruction options.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信