Comparative Efficacy of Classic Versus Horizontal Incision Techniques in Skin-Reducing Mastectomy: A Single Center Retrospective Analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Clinical Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI:10.3390/jcm13206276
Andrea Vittorio Emanuele Lisa, Alessandro Mela, Sergio Miranda, Mario Alessandri Bonetti, Manuela Bottoni, Mattia Intra, Eleonora Pagan, Vincenzo Bagnardi, Mario Rietjens
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Classic Versus Horizontal Incision Techniques in Skin-Reducing Mastectomy: A Single Center Retrospective Analysis.","authors":"Andrea Vittorio Emanuele Lisa, Alessandro Mela, Sergio Miranda, Mario Alessandri Bonetti, Manuela Bottoni, Mattia Intra, Eleonora Pagan, Vincenzo Bagnardi, Mario Rietjens","doi":"10.3390/jcm13206276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: The reconstruction of large breasts carries a heightened risk profile. While skin-reducing mastectomy (SRM) techniques facilitate the correction of breast ptosis, they are frequently associated with a high incidence of vascular complications. This study compares two SRM techniques-the horizontal incision and the classic inverted T incision-by examining their clinical and surgical outcomes. <b>Methods</b>: We retrospectively analyzed data from 24 patients (30 breasts) who underwent SRM with immediate prosthetic reconstruction between 2019 and 2023 at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy. Our comparison focused on breast aesthetic outcome, reconstruction quality, complication rates (early and late), and patient satisfaction, utilizing the BREAST-Q questionnaire to gauge the latter. <b>Results</b>: Among the 24 patients included in the study, 16 (20 breasts) were treated with the inverted T technique, and 8 (10 breasts) with the horizontal incision approach. A higher overall complication rate was observed with the inverted T technique compared to the horizontal method, with early complications outnumbering late ones. The most common issues were recurrent seroma and skin necrosis leading to implant exposure. Notably, there were no cases of implant infection. Although the horizontal incision technique achieved slightly higher patient satisfaction scores, the difference was not statistically significant. <b>Discussion</b>: The inverted T and horizontal incision techniques each have unique benefits and drawbacks. Our findings indicate enhanced patient satisfaction and reduced complication rates with the horizontal incision technique. The selection of the technique should be customized based on the patient's individual risk factors, tissue quality, and preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11508705/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13206276","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The reconstruction of large breasts carries a heightened risk profile. While skin-reducing mastectomy (SRM) techniques facilitate the correction of breast ptosis, they are frequently associated with a high incidence of vascular complications. This study compares two SRM techniques-the horizontal incision and the classic inverted T incision-by examining their clinical and surgical outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 24 patients (30 breasts) who underwent SRM with immediate prosthetic reconstruction between 2019 and 2023 at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy. Our comparison focused on breast aesthetic outcome, reconstruction quality, complication rates (early and late), and patient satisfaction, utilizing the BREAST-Q questionnaire to gauge the latter. Results: Among the 24 patients included in the study, 16 (20 breasts) were treated with the inverted T technique, and 8 (10 breasts) with the horizontal incision approach. A higher overall complication rate was observed with the inverted T technique compared to the horizontal method, with early complications outnumbering late ones. The most common issues were recurrent seroma and skin necrosis leading to implant exposure. Notably, there were no cases of implant infection. Although the horizontal incision technique achieved slightly higher patient satisfaction scores, the difference was not statistically significant. Discussion: The inverted T and horizontal incision techniques each have unique benefits and drawbacks. Our findings indicate enhanced patient satisfaction and reduced complication rates with the horizontal incision technique. The selection of the technique should be customized based on the patient's individual risk factors, tissue quality, and preferences.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经典切口与水平切口技术在缩减皮肤乳房切除术中的疗效比较:单中心回顾性分析
背景:大乳房的重建具有更高的风险。虽然缩减皮肤乳房切除术(SRM)技术有助于矫正乳房下垂,但其血管并发症的发生率较高。本研究比较了两种 SRM 技术(水平切口和经典的倒 T 形切口),研究了它们的临床和手术效果。方法:我们回顾性分析了 2019 年至 2023 年期间在意大利米兰欧洲肿瘤研究所接受 SRM 并立即进行假体重建的 24 名患者(30 个乳房)的数据。我们重点比较了乳房美学效果、重建质量、并发症发生率(早期和晚期)以及患者满意度,并利用 BREAST-Q 问卷对后者进行了评估。结果:在参与研究的 24 位患者中,16 位(20 个乳房)采用了倒 T 型技术,8 位(10 个乳房)采用了水平切口方法。与水平切口法相比,倒 T 型技术的总体并发症发生率更高,早期并发症多于晚期并发症。最常见的问题是复发性血清肿和导致植入物暴露的皮肤坏死。值得注意的是,没有植入物感染的病例。虽然水平切口技术获得的患者满意度评分略高,但差异并无统计学意义。讨论:倒 T 型切口和水平切口技术各有利弊。我们的研究结果表明,水平切口技术可提高患者满意度,降低并发症发生率。应根据患者的个人风险因素、组织质量和偏好选择适合的技术。
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
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
期刊最新文献
Comparative Efficacy of Classic Versus Horizontal Incision Techniques in Skin-Reducing Mastectomy: A Single Center Retrospective Analysis. Adherence to Exercise in People with Lung or Head and Neck Cancer: Self-Reported Symptoms and Motivation During Cancer Treatment Need to Be Considered. Analyzing the Impact of Rehabilitation Utilizing Neurofunctional Exercises on the Functional Status of Stroke Patients. Approaches to Deprescribing Proton Pump Inhibitors in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review. Allograft Prosthetic Composite (APC) for Proximal Humeral Bone Deficiency in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Technical Note and Systematic Review.
×
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