基于胸膜前植入物的乳房重建术中质子与光子乳房切除术后放射治疗的翻修手术。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Aesthetic Surgery Journal Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1093/asj/sjae216
Anshumi Desai, Rohan Mangal, Carolina Padilla, Kate McClintock, Seraphina Choi, Juan R Mella-Catinchi, John C Oeltjen, Devinder P Singh, Cristiane Takita, Wrood Kassira
{"title":"基于胸膜前植入物的乳房重建术中质子与光子乳房切除术后放射治疗的翻修手术。","authors":"Anshumi Desai, Rohan Mangal, Carolina Padilla, Kate McClintock, Seraphina Choi, Juan R Mella-Catinchi, John C Oeltjen, Devinder P Singh, Cristiane Takita, Wrood Kassira","doi":"10.1093/asj/sjae216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves disease-free survival in breast cancer but reduces aesthetic satisfaction. Proton PMRT has gained popularity because it results in fewer systemic complications. There is a lack of data regarding revision surgeries for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PP-IBBR) following radiation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare revision surgeries in PP-IBBR with photon vs proton PMRT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed that included breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and PP-IBBR with PMRT between January 2020 and October 2022. The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 1056.4 days (2.89 years). Revision surgeries evaluated were fat grafting, conversion to autologous flaps, implant replacement, implant removal, capsulectomy, and scar revision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 116 PP-IBBR subjects were divided into 2 cohorts, receiving either photon (75, 64.66%) or proton (41, 35.34%) radiation. Overall corrective surgeries were higher with photon therapy (27.5% overall; 32.4% photon vs 19.5% proton, P = .132). The odds of any revision surgery were nearly double with photon therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.98), and the conversion to an autologous flap was significantly more likely with photon therapy (OR = 4.55, P = .025). Multivariable analysis showed an increased tendency for photon therapy patients to require any revision surgeries (OR = 1.62, P = .359), autologous flaps (OR = 5.97, P = .049), fat grafting (OR = 1.52, P = .664), and scar revision (OR = 4.51, P = .273).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to proton therapy, traditional photon therapy has a higher conversion rate to autologous flaps with PP-IBBR. Photon therapy had higher rates of overall revision surgeries, but the difference was not statistically significant. Proton therapy is safer and requires fewer revision surgeries, warranting larger studies and broader utilization.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 3 (therapeutic): </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":7728,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","volume":" ","pages":"163-170"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revision Surgeries After Proton vs Photon Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.\",\"authors\":\"Anshumi Desai, Rohan Mangal, Carolina Padilla, Kate McClintock, Seraphina Choi, Juan R Mella-Catinchi, John C Oeltjen, Devinder P Singh, Cristiane Takita, Wrood Kassira\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/asj/sjae216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves disease-free survival in breast cancer but reduces aesthetic satisfaction. Proton PMRT has gained popularity because it results in fewer systemic complications. There is a lack of data regarding revision surgeries for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PP-IBBR) following radiation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare revision surgeries in PP-IBBR with photon vs proton PMRT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed that included breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and PP-IBBR with PMRT between January 2020 and October 2022. The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 1056.4 days (2.89 years). Revision surgeries evaluated were fat grafting, conversion to autologous flaps, implant replacement, implant removal, capsulectomy, and scar revision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 116 PP-IBBR subjects were divided into 2 cohorts, receiving either photon (75, 64.66%) or proton (41, 35.34%) radiation. Overall corrective surgeries were higher with photon therapy (27.5% overall; 32.4% photon vs 19.5% proton, P = .132). The odds of any revision surgery were nearly double with photon therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.98), and the conversion to an autologous flap was significantly more likely with photon therapy (OR = 4.55, P = .025). Multivariable analysis showed an increased tendency for photon therapy patients to require any revision surgeries (OR = 1.62, P = .359), autologous flaps (OR = 5.97, P = .049), fat grafting (OR = 1.52, P = .664), and scar revision (OR = 4.51, P = .273).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to proton therapy, traditional photon therapy has a higher conversion rate to autologous flaps with PP-IBBR. Photon therapy had higher rates of overall revision surgeries, but the difference was not statistically significant. Proton therapy is safer and requires fewer revision surgeries, warranting larger studies and broader utilization.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 3 (therapeutic): </strong></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aesthetic Surgery Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"163-170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aesthetic Surgery Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae216\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae216","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:乳房切除术后放射治疗(PMRT)可提高乳腺癌患者的无病生存率,但会降低美学满意度。质子 PMRT 由于全身并发症较少而越来越受欢迎。目前还缺乏有关口前植入物乳房重建术(PP-IBBR)放疗后翻修手术的数据:比较光子和质子 PMRT 治疗 PP-IBBR 的翻修手术:一项单一机构的回顾性队列研究纳入了接受乳房切除术和PP-IBBR与PMRT的乳腺癌患者(2020年1月至2022年10月),队列的平均随访时间为1056.4天(2.89年)。评估的翻修手术包括脂肪移植、改用自体皮瓣、植入物置换、植入物移除、帽子切除和疤痕翻修:116例PP-IBBR分为两组:光子组(75例,64.66%)和质子组(41例,35.34%)。光子的总体矫正手术率较高(总体为 27.5%;光子为 32.4%,质子为 19.5%,P=0.132)。接受光子治疗的患者进行任何翻修手术的几率几乎是质子治疗的两倍(OR=1.98),光子治疗的患者转为自体皮瓣的几率明显更高(OR=4.55,P=0.025)。多变量分析显示,光子疗法患者需要进行任何翻修手术(OR=1.62,p=0.359)、自体皮瓣(OR=5.97,p=0.049)、脂肪移植(OR=1.52,p=0.664)和疤痕翻修(OR=4.51,p=0.273)的几率增加:与质子疗法相比,传统光子疗法的PP-IBBR自体皮瓣转化率更高。光子疗法的总体翻修手术率较高,但无统计学意义。质子疗法更安全,翻修手术更少,值得进行更大规模的研究和更广泛的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Revision Surgeries After Proton vs Photon Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Background: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves disease-free survival in breast cancer but reduces aesthetic satisfaction. Proton PMRT has gained popularity because it results in fewer systemic complications. There is a lack of data regarding revision surgeries for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PP-IBBR) following radiation.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare revision surgeries in PP-IBBR with photon vs proton PMRT.

Methods: A single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed that included breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and PP-IBBR with PMRT between January 2020 and October 2022. The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 1056.4 days (2.89 years). Revision surgeries evaluated were fat grafting, conversion to autologous flaps, implant replacement, implant removal, capsulectomy, and scar revision.

Results: The 116 PP-IBBR subjects were divided into 2 cohorts, receiving either photon (75, 64.66%) or proton (41, 35.34%) radiation. Overall corrective surgeries were higher with photon therapy (27.5% overall; 32.4% photon vs 19.5% proton, P = .132). The odds of any revision surgery were nearly double with photon therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.98), and the conversion to an autologous flap was significantly more likely with photon therapy (OR = 4.55, P = .025). Multivariable analysis showed an increased tendency for photon therapy patients to require any revision surgeries (OR = 1.62, P = .359), autologous flaps (OR = 5.97, P = .049), fat grafting (OR = 1.52, P = .664), and scar revision (OR = 4.51, P = .273).

Conclusions: Compared to proton therapy, traditional photon therapy has a higher conversion rate to autologous flaps with PP-IBBR. Photon therapy had higher rates of overall revision surgeries, but the difference was not statistically significant. Proton therapy is safer and requires fewer revision surgeries, warranting larger studies and broader utilization.

Level of evidence: 3 (therapeutic):

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
6.20
自引率
20.70%
发文量
309
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Surgery Journal is a peer-reviewed international journal focusing on scientific developments and clinical techniques in aesthetic surgery. The official publication of The Aesthetic Society, ASJ is also the official English-language journal of many major international societies of plastic, aesthetic and reconstructive surgery representing South America, Central America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also the official journal of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and The Rhinoplasty Society.
期刊最新文献
Arterioembolic Characteristics of Differentially Diluted CaHA-CMC Gels Within an Artificial Macrovascular Perfusion Model. The Occurrence of Health Symptoms in General Practice Before and After the Explantation of Cosmetic Breast Implants. Correction to: Breast Pocket Lavage With Clindamycin Solution for Silicone Removal After Implant Rupture. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in 252 Board-Certified Plastic Surgeons: Prevalences, ACE Clustering, and Effects on Adult Health and Behaviors, Including Self-Defined Depression, Work Addiction, and Burnout. IncobotulinumtoxinA in the Treatment of Upper Facial Lines: Results From Two Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Studies.
×
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