Subpectoral dissection using an ultrasonic energy device in prosthetic breast reconstruction

Pub Date : 2023-10-31 DOI:10.14730/aaps.2023.00906
Yo Han Kim, Seung Yong Song
{"title":"Subpectoral dissection using an ultrasonic energy device in prosthetic breast reconstruction","authors":"Yo Han Kim, Seung Yong Song","doi":"10.14730/aaps.2023.00906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Ultrasonic devices have potential advantages over electrocautery surgical scalpels for muscle dissection, as they eliminate the risk of muscle contraction caused by electric currents. In this study, we investigated the outcomes of using both device types in subpectoral dissection for breast reconstruction.Methods In this retrospective single-center study, we examined the electronic medical records of female patients with non-recurrent breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction. The patients were treated with either Harmonic Focus+ Shears (HFS) or a Bovie electrocautery scalpel (BES) between January 2015 and April 2020. The primary clinical outcomes evaluated were total drainage volume, time to drainage tube removal, and operation time. To control for confounding, outcomes were stratified based on the type of tissue expander used—either Mentor or Natrelle.Results The study included 303 patients; 155 (51.2%) were treated with HFS (mean age, 45.28±7.38 years) and 148 (48.8%) with BES (mean age, 44.41±9.37 years). Within each expander type, the frequency of drainage exceeding 30 cc per day after 21 postoperative days showed no statistical difference between the HFS and BES devices. The operation time was shorter for HFS in both the Mentor (85.13±19.81 minutes vs. 109.56±21.66 minutes, P<0.001) and Natrelle (88.09±20.64 minutes vs. 99.88±22.66, P<0.001) groups.Conclusions When controlling for the type of tissue expander as a confounding factor, HFS was associated with reduced operation time. Furthermore, it demonstrated superior clinical effectiveness compared to BES regarding operator convenience.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14730/aaps.2023.00906","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Ultrasonic devices have potential advantages over electrocautery surgical scalpels for muscle dissection, as they eliminate the risk of muscle contraction caused by electric currents. In this study, we investigated the outcomes of using both device types in subpectoral dissection for breast reconstruction.Methods In this retrospective single-center study, we examined the electronic medical records of female patients with non-recurrent breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction. The patients were treated with either Harmonic Focus+ Shears (HFS) or a Bovie electrocautery scalpel (BES) between January 2015 and April 2020. The primary clinical outcomes evaluated were total drainage volume, time to drainage tube removal, and operation time. To control for confounding, outcomes were stratified based on the type of tissue expander used—either Mentor or Natrelle.Results The study included 303 patients; 155 (51.2%) were treated with HFS (mean age, 45.28±7.38 years) and 148 (48.8%) with BES (mean age, 44.41±9.37 years). Within each expander type, the frequency of drainage exceeding 30 cc per day after 21 postoperative days showed no statistical difference between the HFS and BES devices. The operation time was shorter for HFS in both the Mentor (85.13±19.81 minutes vs. 109.56±21.66 minutes, P<0.001) and Natrelle (88.09±20.64 minutes vs. 99.88±22.66, P<0.001) groups.Conclusions When controlling for the type of tissue expander as a confounding factor, HFS was associated with reduced operation time. Furthermore, it demonstrated superior clinical effectiveness compared to BES regarding operator convenience.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
超声能量装置在假体乳房重建中的应用
超声设备在肌肉解剖方面比电灼手术手术刀有潜在的优势,因为它们消除了由电流引起的肌肉收缩的风险。在这项研究中,我们调查了在乳房重建中使用两种装置类型的胸下夹层的结果。方法在这项回顾性单中心研究中,我们检查了接受乳房重建的非复发性乳腺癌女性患者的电子病历。患者于2015年1月至2020年4月期间使用谐波焦点+剪刀(HFS)或博维电割刀(BES)进行治疗。评估的主要临床结果是总引流量、拔出引流管时间和手术时间。为了控制混淆,根据使用的组织扩张剂类型(Mentor或Natrelle)对结果进行分层。结果纳入303例患者;HFS组155例(51.2%),平均年龄45.28±7.38岁;BES组148例(48.8%),平均年龄44.41±9.37岁。在每种扩张器类型中,术后21天引流次数超过30cc / d的HFS设备与BES设备之间无统计学差异。Mentor组(85.13±19.81分钟比109.56±21.66分钟,P<0.001)和Natrelle组(88.09±20.64分钟比99.88±22.66分钟,P<0.001)治疗HFS的手术时间较短。结论在控制组织扩张器类型作为混杂因素时,HFS与缩短手术时间有关。此外,与BES相比,它在操作方便方面表现出了更好的临床效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1