breast reconstruction Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024;46:e-rbgo13
The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain between SF flap and serratus anterior muscle (SM) in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.
This is a prospective cohort study that included 53 women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction from January 2020 to March 2021. Twenty-nine patients (54.7%) had SF elevation, and 24 patients (45.3%) underwent SM elevation. We evaluated patient-reported early postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Also, it was reported that all surgical complications in the first month and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were measured with the BRECON 23 questionnaire.
The serratus fascia group used implants with larger volumes, 407.6 ± 98.9 cc (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the fascial and muscular groups regarding the postoperative pain score reported by the patients (2 versus 3; p = 0.30). Also, there was no difference between the groups regarding early surgical complications and PROs after breast reconstruction.
The use of SF seems to cause less morbidity, which makes the technique an alternative to be considered in breast reconstruction. Although there was no statistical difference in postoperative pain scores between the fascia and serratus muscle groups.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024;46:e-rbgo13
The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain between SF flap and serratus anterior muscle (SM) in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.
This is a prospective cohort study that included 53 women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction from January 2020 to March 2021. Twenty-nine patients (54.7%) had SF elevation, and 24 patients (45.3%) underwent SM elevation. We evaluated patient-reported early postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Also, it was reported that all surgical complications in the first month and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were measured with the BRECON 23 questionnaire.
The serratus fascia group used implants with larger volumes, 407.6 ± 98.9 cc (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the fascial and muscular groups regarding the postoperative pain score reported by the patients (2 versus 3; p = 0.30). Also, there was no difference between the groups regarding early surgical complications and PROs after breast reconstruction.
The use of SF seems to cause less morbidity, which makes the technique an alternative to be considered in breast reconstruction. Although there was no statistical difference in postoperative pain scores between the fascia and serratus muscle groups.
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2021;43(9):690-698
, , , , , , , , , Infection and exposure of the implant are some of the most common and concerning complications after implant-based breast reconstruction. Currently, there is no consensus on the management of these complications. The aim of the present study was to review our cases and to present a clinical protocol.
We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients submitted to implant-based breast reconstruction between 2014 and 2016. All patients were managed according to a specific and structured protocol.
Implant exposure occurred in 33 out of 277 (11.9%) implant-based reconstructions. Among these, two patients had history of radiotherapy and had their implant removed; Delayed reconstruction with a myocutaneous flap was performed in both cases. Signs of severe local infection were observed in 12 patients, and another 5 presented with extensive tissue necrosis, and they were all submitted to implant removal; of them, 8 underwent reconstruction with a tissue expander, and 2, with a myocutaneous flap. The remaining 14 patients had no signs of severe infection, previous irradiation or extensive tissue necrosis, and were submitted to primary suture as an attempt to salvage the implant. Of these, 8 cases (57.1%) managed to keep the
Our clinical protocol is based on three key points: history of radiotherapy, severe infection, and extensive tissue necrosis. It is a practical and potentially-reproducible method of managing one of the most common complications of implant-based breast reconstruction.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2021;43(9):690-698
, , , , , , , , , Infection and exposure of the implant are some of the most common and concerning complications after implant-based breast reconstruction. Currently, there is no consensus on the management of these complications. The aim of the present study was to review our cases and to present a clinical protocol.
We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients submitted to implant-based breast reconstruction between 2014 and 2016. All patients were managed according to a specific and structured protocol.
Implant exposure occurred in 33 out of 277 (11.9%) implant-based reconstructions. Among these, two patients had history of radiotherapy and had their implant removed; Delayed reconstruction with a myocutaneous flap was performed in both cases. Signs of severe local infection were observed in 12 patients, and another 5 presented with extensive tissue necrosis, and they were all submitted to implant removal; of them, 8 underwent reconstruction with a tissue expander, and 2, with a myocutaneous flap. The remaining 14 patients had no signs of severe infection, previous irradiation or extensive tissue necrosis, and were submitted to primary suture as an attempt to salvage the implant. Of these, 8 cases (57.1%) managed to keep the
Our clinical protocol is based on three key points: history of radiotherapy, severe infection, and extensive tissue necrosis. It is a practical and potentially-reproducible method of managing one of the most common complications of implant-based breast reconstruction.
