上内侧和下蒂乳房缩小手术的临床相关性和结果的比较:一项回顾性研究。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Thomas Ren, Andre Galenchik-Chan, Katherine Wang, Duc T Bui
{"title":"上内侧和下蒂乳房缩小手术的临床相关性和结果的比较:一项回顾性研究。","authors":"Thomas Ren, Andre Galenchik-Chan, Katherine Wang, Duc T Bui","doi":"10.1007/s00266-025-05041-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Historically, the inferior pedicle (IFP) procedure has been the dominant technique for the treatment of macromastia; however, the superomedial pedicle (SMP) approach allows for decreased operative times, reduced incision tension, and improved and longer lasting superior pole fullness. The goal of this study is to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with the inferior pedicle and superomedial pedicle approaches to reduction mammoplasty.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study was conducted through a single surgeon's experience with a total of 444 patients from 2005-2024. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on their breast reduction pedicle type. Chi-square tests and linear regression analysis were utilized to compare patient characteristics and surgical outcomes of the two pedicle types.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the total 444 reduction mammoplasty patients, 114 (25.7%) underwent the IFP technique and 330 (74.3%) underwent the SMP reduction. Patients in the IFP cohort had a significantly higher total complication rate of 57.0%, while the SMP cohort had a total complication rate of 46.1%. The prevalence of cellulitis was the only statistically significant difference between the two groups. 21.9% of IFP patients developed cellulitis post-operatively compared to 7.0% of SMP patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study supports the notion that superior pedicle reduction mammoplasty is as safe and may result in fewer complications than the current inferior pedicle standard. The overall complication rate, and specifically prevalence of cellulitis within the IFP technique may be attributed to four main factors: operative time, weight of breast resected, BMI, and drain status. Given the lack of similar findings in the literature, we believe our results may reflect differences in preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative management. Both techniques appear to have comparable complication rates and should remain essential skills for surgeons.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence iii: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Clinical Associations and Outcomes Between Superomedial and Inferior Pedicle Breast Reduction Surgery: A Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Ren, Andre Galenchik-Chan, Katherine Wang, Duc T Bui\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00266-025-05041-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Historically, the inferior pedicle (IFP) procedure has been the dominant technique for the treatment of macromastia; however, the superomedial pedicle (SMP) approach allows for decreased operative times, reduced incision tension, and improved and longer lasting superior pole fullness. The goal of this study is to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with the inferior pedicle and superomedial pedicle approaches to reduction mammoplasty.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study was conducted through a single surgeon's experience with a total of 444 patients from 2005-2024. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on their breast reduction pedicle type. Chi-square tests and linear regression analysis were utilized to compare patient characteristics and surgical outcomes of the two pedicle types.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the total 444 reduction mammoplasty patients, 114 (25.7%) underwent the IFP technique and 330 (74.3%) underwent the SMP reduction. Patients in the IFP cohort had a significantly higher total complication rate of 57.0%, while the SMP cohort had a total complication rate of 46.1%. The prevalence of cellulitis was the only statistically significant difference between the two groups. 21.9% of IFP patients developed cellulitis post-operatively compared to 7.0% of SMP patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study supports the notion that superior pedicle reduction mammoplasty is as safe and may result in fewer complications than the current inferior pedicle standard. The overall complication rate, and specifically prevalence of cellulitis within the IFP technique may be attributed to four main factors: operative time, weight of breast resected, BMI, and drain status. Given the lack of similar findings in the literature, we believe our results may reflect differences in preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative management. Both techniques appear to have comparable complication rates and should remain essential skills for surgeons.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence iii: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-05041-1\",\"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":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-05041-1","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

简介:历史上,下蒂(IFP)手术一直是治疗巨乳症的主要技术;然而,上内侧椎弓根(SMP)入路可以减少手术次数,减少切口张力,改善和持久的优越极丰满度。本研究的目的是调查和比较下椎弓根入路和上内侧椎弓根入路行缩乳术的临床结果和并发症。材料和方法:本回顾性研究是通过单一外科医生的经验进行的,共444例患者,从2005年到2024年。根据缩胸蒂类型将患者分为两组。采用卡方检验和线性回归分析比较两种椎弓根类型的患者特征和手术结果。结果:在444例乳房缩小成形术患者中,114例(25.7%)采用了IFP技术,330例(74.3%)采用了SMP技术。IFP组患者的总并发症发生率为57.0%,而SMP组患者的总并发症发生率为46.1%。蜂窝织炎的患病率是两组之间唯一有统计学意义的差异。21.9%的IFP患者术后发生蜂窝织炎,而SMP患者的这一比例为7.0%。结论:本研究支持上蒂缩窄乳房成形术与目前的下蒂缩窄乳房成形术同样安全且并发症更少的观点。总的并发症发生率,特别是IFP术中蜂窝织炎的发生率可能归因于四个主要因素:手术时间、切除乳房的体重、BMI和引流状态。鉴于文献中缺乏类似的发现,我们认为我们的结果可能反映了患者术前特征和术后处理的差异。这两种技术似乎都有相当的并发症发生率,应该成为外科医生的基本技能。证据等级iii:本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据等级。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者说明www.springer.com/00266。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Clinical Associations and Outcomes Between Superomedial and Inferior Pedicle Breast Reduction Surgery: A Retrospective Study.

Introduction: Historically, the inferior pedicle (IFP) procedure has been the dominant technique for the treatment of macromastia; however, the superomedial pedicle (SMP) approach allows for decreased operative times, reduced incision tension, and improved and longer lasting superior pole fullness. The goal of this study is to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with the inferior pedicle and superomedial pedicle approaches to reduction mammoplasty.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study was conducted through a single surgeon's experience with a total of 444 patients from 2005-2024. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on their breast reduction pedicle type. Chi-square tests and linear regression analysis were utilized to compare patient characteristics and surgical outcomes of the two pedicle types.

Results: Of the total 444 reduction mammoplasty patients, 114 (25.7%) underwent the IFP technique and 330 (74.3%) underwent the SMP reduction. Patients in the IFP cohort had a significantly higher total complication rate of 57.0%, while the SMP cohort had a total complication rate of 46.1%. The prevalence of cellulitis was the only statistically significant difference between the two groups. 21.9% of IFP patients developed cellulitis post-operatively compared to 7.0% of SMP patients.

Conclusion: This study supports the notion that superior pedicle reduction mammoplasty is as safe and may result in fewer complications than the current inferior pedicle standard. The overall complication rate, and specifically prevalence of cellulitis within the IFP technique may be attributed to four main factors: operative time, weight of breast resected, BMI, and drain status. Given the lack of similar findings in the literature, we believe our results may reflect differences in preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative management. Both techniques appear to have comparable complication rates and should remain essential skills for surgeons.

Level of evidence iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

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
4.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
479
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP). Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.
×
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