【既往并发症后重复乳房重建】。

Q4 Medicine
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价肿瘤患者首次乳房再造术术后并发症的临床疗效。材料与方法:117例患者行一期乳房再造术,采用假体、自体移植物和/或两者联合。结果:回顾性分析包括2017-2021年接受复杂治疗的117例患者。外科治疗(皮下/皮肤保留乳房切除术,一期重建)在肿瘤科实现,乳房和皮肤重建手术。分析包括硅胶假体一期重建患者(n=96, 82%),不同皮瓣(n=3, 2.5%),自体和同种异体材料联合(n=18, 15.3%)。最常见的并发症是Backer III/IV级囊膜挛缩、种植体破裂、假体突出和皮瓣坏死。最可取的重做手术是种植体间置换术(n=58)。其中,有40例(68.9%)因Backer III/IV级囊挛缩、种植体突出(n=7, 12%)和破裂(n=5, 8.6%)重做手术。皮瓣坏死需要皮瓣置换种植体、皮瓣复位和在皮瓣下放置种植体。结论:每一种技术均有其优缺点,方法的选择应根据患者的个体特点而定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[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.

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
Khirurgiya
Khirurgiya Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
161
期刊介绍: Хирургия отдельных областей сердце, сосуды легкие пищевод молочная железа желудок и двенадцатиперстная кишка кишечник желчевыводящие пути печень
×
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