V N Sipki, M Yu Vlasova, E A Zanozina, M V Moshurova, A D Zikiryakhodzhaev
{"title":"【既往并发症后重复乳房重建】。","authors":"V N Sipki, M Yu Vlasova, E A Zanozina, M V Moshurova, A D Zikiryakhodzhaev","doi":"10.17116/hirurgia202506151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of repeated breast reconstruction in cancer patients depending on complications after primary reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>There were 117 patients who underwent primary one-stage breast reconstruction with endoprosthesis, autograft and/or their combination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A retrospective analysis included 117 patients who underwent complex treatment in 2017-2021. Surgical treatment (subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomy with one-stage reconstruction) was realized at the department of oncology and reconstructive surgery of the breast and skin. Analysis included patients after one-stage reconstruction with silicone endoprosthesis (<i>n</i>=96, 82%), different flaps (<i>n</i>=3, 2.5%), combination of auto- and allogenic materials (<i>n</i>=18, 15.3%). The most common complications were Backer grade III/IV capsular contracture, implant rupture, endoprosthesis protrusion and flap necrosis. The most preferable redo surgery was implant-to-implant replacement (<i>n</i>=58). Of these, there were 40 (68.9%) redo surgeries for Backer grade III/IV capsular contracture, implant protrusion (<i>n</i>=7, 12%) and rupture (<i>n</i>=5, 8.6%). Flap necrosis required flap replacement with implant, flap reduction and implant placement under the flap.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Each technique has certain advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of method depends on individual characteristics of each patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":35986,"journal":{"name":"Khirurgiya","volume":" 6","pages":"51-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Repeated breast reconstruction after previous complications].\",\"authors\":\"V N Sipki, M Yu Vlasova, E A Zanozina, M V Moshurova, A D Zikiryakhodzhaev\",\"doi\":\"10.17116/hirurgia202506151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of repeated breast reconstruction in cancer patients depending on complications after primary reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>There were 117 patients who underwent primary one-stage breast reconstruction with endoprosthesis, autograft and/or their combination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A retrospective analysis included 117 patients who underwent complex treatment in 2017-2021. Surgical treatment (subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomy with one-stage reconstruction) was realized at the department of oncology and reconstructive surgery of the breast and skin. Analysis included patients after one-stage reconstruction with silicone endoprosthesis (<i>n</i>=96, 82%), different flaps (<i>n</i>=3, 2.5%), combination of auto- and allogenic materials (<i>n</i>=18, 15.3%). The most common complications were Backer grade III/IV capsular contracture, implant rupture, endoprosthesis protrusion and flap necrosis. The most preferable redo surgery was implant-to-implant replacement (<i>n</i>=58). Of these, there were 40 (68.9%) redo surgeries for Backer grade III/IV capsular contracture, implant protrusion (<i>n</i>=7, 12%) and rupture (<i>n</i>=5, 8.6%). Flap necrosis required flap replacement with implant, flap reduction and implant placement under the flap.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Each technique has certain advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of method depends on individual characteristics of each patient.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Khirurgiya\",\"volume\":\" 6\",\"pages\":\"51-57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Khirurgiya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia202506151\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Khirurgiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia202506151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
[Repeated breast reconstruction after previous complications].
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of repeated breast reconstruction in cancer patients depending on complications after primary reconstruction.
Material and methods: There were 117 patients who underwent primary one-stage breast reconstruction with endoprosthesis, autograft and/or their combination.
Results: A retrospective analysis included 117 patients who underwent complex treatment in 2017-2021. Surgical treatment (subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomy with one-stage reconstruction) was realized at the department of oncology and reconstructive surgery of the breast and skin. Analysis included patients after one-stage reconstruction with silicone endoprosthesis (n=96, 82%), different flaps (n=3, 2.5%), combination of auto- and allogenic materials (n=18, 15.3%). The most common complications were Backer grade III/IV capsular contracture, implant rupture, endoprosthesis protrusion and flap necrosis. The most preferable redo surgery was implant-to-implant replacement (n=58). Of these, there were 40 (68.9%) redo surgeries for Backer grade III/IV capsular contracture, implant protrusion (n=7, 12%) and rupture (n=5, 8.6%). Flap necrosis required flap replacement with implant, flap reduction and implant placement under the flap.
Conclusion: Each technique has certain advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of method depends on individual characteristics of each patient.