单期阔肌植入乳房重建是安全可靠的:一个外科医生207个皮瓣系列。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Youssef Aref, Yasmina Samaha, Hamzah Almadani, Brianne Mitchell, Edward C Ray, Randolph Sherman, Philip S Brazio
{"title":"单期阔肌植入乳房重建是安全可靠的:一个外科医生207个皮瓣系列。","authors":"Youssef Aref, Yasmina Samaha, Hamzah Almadani, Brianne Mitchell, Edward C Ray, Randolph Sherman, Philip S Brazio","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is a historical workhorse and contemporary salvage mainstay for breast reconstruction. There is still debate regarding timing and staging, with some authors advocating for staged reconstruction using tissue expanders. We present a single-surgeon experience with LDF breast reconstruction and compare the results of single-stage reconstruction versus staged approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing LDF breast reconstruction from 2008 to 2021 with a single surgeon (R.S.) were included. Charts were reviewed for demographics, indications, number and type of planned stages, and outcomes. Acute and chronic complications and revisions were compared between indication and staging groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 156 patients underwent LDF breast reconstruction, of which 111 flaps (53.1%) were bilateral. One hundred seventy-nine (85.6%) flaps were for primary reconstruction, and 30 (14.4%) flaps were for salvage of a previous breast reconstruction. Fourteen (6.7%) flaps were 1-stage LDF alone, 189 (90.4%) were 1-stage LDF with implant, 1 (0.5%) was 2-stage LDF with implant, and 5 (2.4%) were 2-stage LDF with tissue expander then implant. The mean follow-up was 44.9 months (range, 1-164 months). The most common complication was capsular contracture (29%). Overall complication rates were similar between primary and salvage reconstruction (35.8% vs 43.3%, P = 0.426), as was needed for revision (39.1% vs 40.0%, P = 0.926). There was a significant difference in complication rate (P = 0.021) but not revision rate (P = 0.133) between staging groups: 1-stage LDF alone, 7.1%, 14.3%; 1-stage LDF with implant, 40.2%, 41.8%; 2-stage LDF with implant, 0.0%, 0.0%; and 2-stage LDF with expander then implant, 0.0%, 20.0%. After removing capsular contracture, there was no difference in complication rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-staged LDF/implant reconstruction remains a safe and reliable surgical option for both primary and salvage breast reconstruction. High rates of capsular contracture should prompt the deployment of techniques to reduce its incidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":"94 5S Suppl 3","pages":"S457-S464"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single-Stage Latissimus-Implant Breast Reconstruction Is Safe and Reliable: A Single Surgeon Series of 207 Flaps.\",\"authors\":\"Youssef Aref, Yasmina Samaha, Hamzah Almadani, Brianne Mitchell, Edward C Ray, Randolph Sherman, Philip S Brazio\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is a historical workhorse and contemporary salvage mainstay for breast reconstruction. There is still debate regarding timing and staging, with some authors advocating for staged reconstruction using tissue expanders. We present a single-surgeon experience with LDF breast reconstruction and compare the results of single-stage reconstruction versus staged approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing LDF breast reconstruction from 2008 to 2021 with a single surgeon (R.S.) were included. Charts were reviewed for demographics, indications, number and type of planned stages, and outcomes. Acute and chronic complications and revisions were compared between indication and staging groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 156 patients underwent LDF breast reconstruction, of which 111 flaps (53.1%) were bilateral. One hundred seventy-nine (85.6%) flaps were for primary reconstruction, and 30 (14.4%) flaps were for salvage of a previous breast reconstruction. Fourteen (6.7%) flaps were 1-stage LDF alone, 189 (90.4%) were 1-stage LDF with implant, 1 (0.5%) was 2-stage LDF with implant, and 5 (2.4%) were 2-stage LDF with tissue expander then implant. The mean follow-up was 44.9 months (range, 1-164 months). The most common complication was capsular contracture (29%). Overall complication rates were similar between primary and salvage reconstruction (35.8% vs 43.3%, P = 0.426), as was needed for revision (39.1% vs 40.0%, P = 0.926). There was a significant difference in complication rate (P = 0.021) but not revision rate (P = 0.133) between staging groups: 1-stage LDF alone, 7.1%, 14.3%; 1-stage LDF with implant, 40.2%, 41.8%; 2-stage LDF with implant, 0.0%, 0.0%; and 2-stage LDF with expander then implant, 0.0%, 20.0%. After removing capsular contracture, there was no difference in complication rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-staged LDF/implant reconstruction remains a safe and reliable surgical option for both primary and salvage breast reconstruction. High rates of capsular contracture should prompt the deployment of techniques to reduce its incidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"94 5S Suppl 3\",\"pages\":\"S457-S464\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004283\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004283","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:背阔肌皮瓣(LDF)是历史上的主力军和当代乳房重建的抢救支柱。关于时间和分期仍然存在争议,一些作者主张使用组织扩张器进行分期重建。我们介绍了一位外科医生在LDF乳房重建方面的经验,并比较了单期重建和分阶段入路的结果。方法:纳入2008年至2021年单外科医生(R.S.)行LDF乳房重建的患者。对图表进行了人口统计、适应症、计划阶段的数量和类型以及结果的审查。急性和慢性并发症及改型在适应症组和分期组之间进行比较。结果156例患者行LDF乳房再造术,其中双侧皮瓣111个,占53.1%。179个(85.6%)皮瓣用于初次重建,30个(14.4%)皮瓣用于修复先前的乳房重建。单纯1期LDF 14例(6.7%),1期LDF合并种植体189例(90.4%),2期LDF合并种植体1例(0.5%),2期LDF合并组织扩张器再种植体5例(2.4%)。平均随访44.9个月(1 ~ 164个月)。最常见的并发症是包膜挛缩(29%)。初次重建和补救性重建的总并发症发生率相似(35.8% vs 43.3%, P = 0.426),需要翻修的并发症发生率相似(39.1% vs 40.0%, P = 0.926)。两组间并发症发生率差异有统计学意义(P = 0.021),翻修率差异无统计学意义(P = 0.133):单纯1期LDF分别为7.1%、14.3%;一期LDF伴种植体占40.2%,41.8%;2期LDF带种植体,0.0%,0.0%;2期LDF +扩张器+种植体,分别为0.0%、20.0%。切除包膜挛缩后,并发症发生率无显著差异。结论:单阶段LDF/假体重建术对于原发性和补救性乳房重建术仍然是一种安全可靠的手术选择。高发生率的包膜挛缩应提示技术部署,以减少其发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Single-Stage Latissimus-Implant Breast Reconstruction Is Safe and Reliable: A Single Surgeon Series of 207 Flaps.

Background: The latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is a historical workhorse and contemporary salvage mainstay for breast reconstruction. There is still debate regarding timing and staging, with some authors advocating for staged reconstruction using tissue expanders. We present a single-surgeon experience with LDF breast reconstruction and compare the results of single-stage reconstruction versus staged approaches.

Methods: Patients undergoing LDF breast reconstruction from 2008 to 2021 with a single surgeon (R.S.) were included. Charts were reviewed for demographics, indications, number and type of planned stages, and outcomes. Acute and chronic complications and revisions were compared between indication and staging groups.

Results: A total of 156 patients underwent LDF breast reconstruction, of which 111 flaps (53.1%) were bilateral. One hundred seventy-nine (85.6%) flaps were for primary reconstruction, and 30 (14.4%) flaps were for salvage of a previous breast reconstruction. Fourteen (6.7%) flaps were 1-stage LDF alone, 189 (90.4%) were 1-stage LDF with implant, 1 (0.5%) was 2-stage LDF with implant, and 5 (2.4%) were 2-stage LDF with tissue expander then implant. The mean follow-up was 44.9 months (range, 1-164 months). The most common complication was capsular contracture (29%). Overall complication rates were similar between primary and salvage reconstruction (35.8% vs 43.3%, P = 0.426), as was needed for revision (39.1% vs 40.0%, P = 0.926). There was a significant difference in complication rate (P = 0.021) but not revision rate (P = 0.133) between staging groups: 1-stage LDF alone, 7.1%, 14.3%; 1-stage LDF with implant, 40.2%, 41.8%; 2-stage LDF with implant, 0.0%, 0.0%; and 2-stage LDF with expander then implant, 0.0%, 20.0%. After removing capsular contracture, there was no difference in complication rates.

Conclusions: Single-staged LDF/implant reconstruction remains a safe and reliable surgical option for both primary and salvage breast reconstruction. High rates of capsular contracture should prompt the deployment of techniques to reduce its incidence.

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
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
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