与单纯植入假体或单纯皮瓣重建相比,DIEP 皮瓣与植入假体的并发症发生率较低。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Carol Wang, Nikita Roy, Keisha E Montalmant, Peter Shamamian, Nargiz Seyidova, Olachi Ozioma Oleru, Francis Graziano, Jordan M S Jacobs, Hani Sbitany, Peter Henderson
{"title":"与单纯植入假体或单纯皮瓣重建相比,DIEP 皮瓣与植入假体的并发症发生率较低。","authors":"Carol Wang, Nikita Roy, Keisha E Montalmant, Peter Shamamian, Nargiz Seyidova, Olachi Ozioma Oleru, Francis Graziano, Jordan M S Jacobs, Hani Sbitany, Peter Henderson","doi":"10.1055/a-2483-5472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hybrid deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and simultaneous silicone implant breast reconstruction procedures (\"DIEP+I\") have many conceptual advantages compared to either reconstruction method alone, but the outcomes of DIEP+I reconstruction have not yet been well studied. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of DIEP+I with implant-only and DIEP-only reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing DIEP+I, implant-only, and DIEP-only breast reconstruction from 2019-2023 at a single institution. Demographics and complication rates were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 145 patients were included in the DIEP+I (N = 26), implant-only (N = 59), and DIEP-only (N = 60) groups. The DIEP+I group had a lower overall complication rate than implant-only reconstruction (18.4% vs 41.1%, P = 0.014), which was primarily due to the lower incidence of infections in the DIEP+I group (2.6% vs 22.2%, P = 0.006). Accordingly, DIEP+I reconstruction decreased the odds of infection by 90% (OR = 0.095, P = 0.024) compared to implant-only reconstruction. The DIEP+I group had similar rates of wound healing and implant-related complications compared to the implant-only and DIEP-only groups, and no patients in the DIEP+I group experienced flap loss.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DIEP+I breast reconstruction had a lower rate of infectious complications than implant-only reconstruction, and no higher rate of flap compromise or wound healing complications. This technique could be considered as a means of minimizing infection risk in patients with other risk factors who are seeking implant-based reconstruction, and of enhancing breast projection in patients who are seeking DIEP flap reconstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DIEP flap with implant placement has a favorable complication profile compared to implant-only or flap-only reconstruction.\",\"authors\":\"Carol Wang, Nikita Roy, Keisha E Montalmant, Peter Shamamian, Nargiz Seyidova, Olachi Ozioma Oleru, Francis Graziano, Jordan M S Jacobs, Hani Sbitany, Peter Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2483-5472\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hybrid deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and simultaneous silicone implant breast reconstruction procedures (\\\"DIEP+I\\\") have many conceptual advantages compared to either reconstruction method alone, but the outcomes of DIEP+I reconstruction have not yet been well studied. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of DIEP+I with implant-only and DIEP-only reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing DIEP+I, implant-only, and DIEP-only breast reconstruction from 2019-2023 at a single institution. Demographics and complication rates were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 145 patients were included in the DIEP+I (N = 26), implant-only (N = 59), and DIEP-only (N = 60) groups. The DIEP+I group had a lower overall complication rate than implant-only reconstruction (18.4% vs 41.1%, P = 0.014), which was primarily due to the lower incidence of infections in the DIEP+I group (2.6% vs 22.2%, P = 0.006). Accordingly, DIEP+I reconstruction decreased the odds of infection by 90% (OR = 0.095, P = 0.024) compared to implant-only reconstruction. The DIEP+I group had similar rates of wound healing and implant-related complications compared to the implant-only and DIEP-only groups, and no patients in the DIEP+I group experienced flap loss.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DIEP+I breast reconstruction had a lower rate of infectious complications than implant-only reconstruction, and no higher rate of flap compromise or wound healing complications. This technique could be considered as a means of minimizing infection risk in patients with other risk factors who are seeking implant-based reconstruction, and of enhancing breast projection in patients who are seeking DIEP flap reconstruction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16949,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2483-5472\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2483-5472","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:混合下腹穿孔带(DIEP)皮瓣和硅胶假体乳房重建术("DIEP+I")与单独的两种重建方法相比,在概念上有很多优势,但对DIEP+I重建的结果尚未进行深入研究。因此,本研究的目的是比较 DIEP+I 与单纯植入物和单纯 DIEP 重建的效果:方法:对2019-2023年在一家机构接受DIEP+I、纯植入物和纯DIEP乳房重建的患者进行了回顾性研究。比较了不同组别的人口统计学特征和并发症发生率:DIEP+I组(26人)、纯植入组(59人)和纯DIEP组(60人)共纳入145名患者。DIEP+I组的总体并发症发生率低于纯植入物重建组(18.4% vs 41.1%,P = 0.014),这主要是因为DIEP+I组的感染发生率较低(2.6% vs 22.2%,P = 0.006)。因此,与单纯植入物重建相比,DIEP+I重建将感染几率降低了90%(OR = 0.095,P = 0.024)。与单纯植入组和单纯DIEP组相比,DIEP+I组的伤口愈合率和植入物相关并发症发生率相似,DIEP+I组没有患者出现皮瓣脱落:结论:DIEP+I乳房重建术的感染并发症发生率低于纯植入物重建术,皮瓣受损或伤口愈合并发症发生率也不高。对于有其他风险因素而寻求假体重建的患者,可以考虑采用这种技术将感染风险降至最低;对于寻求 DIEP 皮瓣重建的患者,可以考虑采用这种技术增强乳房的突出度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
DIEP flap with implant placement has a favorable complication profile compared to implant-only or flap-only reconstruction.

Background: Hybrid deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and simultaneous silicone implant breast reconstruction procedures ("DIEP+I") have many conceptual advantages compared to either reconstruction method alone, but the outcomes of DIEP+I reconstruction have not yet been well studied. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of DIEP+I with implant-only and DIEP-only reconstruction.

Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing DIEP+I, implant-only, and DIEP-only breast reconstruction from 2019-2023 at a single institution. Demographics and complication rates were compared between groups.

Results: A total of 145 patients were included in the DIEP+I (N = 26), implant-only (N = 59), and DIEP-only (N = 60) groups. The DIEP+I group had a lower overall complication rate than implant-only reconstruction (18.4% vs 41.1%, P = 0.014), which was primarily due to the lower incidence of infections in the DIEP+I group (2.6% vs 22.2%, P = 0.006). Accordingly, DIEP+I reconstruction decreased the odds of infection by 90% (OR = 0.095, P = 0.024) compared to implant-only reconstruction. The DIEP+I group had similar rates of wound healing and implant-related complications compared to the implant-only and DIEP-only groups, and no patients in the DIEP+I group experienced flap loss.

Conclusion: DIEP+I breast reconstruction had a lower rate of infectious complications than implant-only reconstruction, and no higher rate of flap compromise or wound healing complications. This technique could be considered as a means of minimizing infection risk in patients with other risk factors who are seeking implant-based reconstruction, and of enhancing breast projection in patients who are seeking DIEP flap reconstruction.

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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
80
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal that provides an international forum for the publication of articles focusing on reconstructive microsurgery and complex reconstructive surgery. The journal was originally established in 1984 for the microsurgical community to publish and share academic papers. The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery provides the latest in original research spanning basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations. Review papers cover current topics in complex reconstruction and microsurgery. In addition, special sections discuss new technologies, innovations, materials, and significant problem cases. The journal welcomes controversial topics, editorial comments, book reviews, and letters to the Editor, in order to complete the balanced spectrum of information available in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. All articles undergo stringent peer review by international experts in the specialty.
×
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