乳房缩小整形术的切除重量公式:系统回顾与回归分析

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Annals of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000004114
Nisha Gupta, Christian X Lava, Sami Ferdousian, Karen R Li, Jenna C Bekeny, Kenneth L Fan
{"title":"乳房缩小整形术的切除重量公式:系统回顾与回归分析","authors":"Nisha Gupta, Christian X Lava, Sami Ferdousian, Karen R Li, Jenna C Bekeny, Kenneth L Fan","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Estimating resection weight for patients undergoing reduction mammoplasty (RM) informs surgical planning and outcomes. Existing formulas have limitations that make insurance coverage and accurate surgical planning challenging. We identified the most commonly used scales to evaluate their accuracy in estimating resection weight by applying them to a database of patients to compare calculated and actual resection weights.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A database search was conducted using combinations of relevant terms. A regression analysis was conducted using formulas with strong R2 values (0.72-0.93) on a cohort of 1128 RM patients at a single institution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 570 articles were identified. Fourteen manuscripts (n = 2232 patients [3320 breasts]) were ultimately included for review. Data on incisional patterns, pedicle supply, and breast measurements, such as sternal notch to nipple distance (n = 8 [57.1%]) or nipple to inframammary fold distance (n = 5 [35.7%]), were recorded. R2 values in our cohort (>500 g, n = 891; <500 g, n = 237) were calculated via regression analyses with five formulas: Appel (0.391 vs 0.146), Boukovalas (0.3552 vs 0.043), Descamps (0.391 vs 0.238), Eder (0.328 vs 0.114), and Kocak (0.3283 vs R2 indeterminate).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis suggests that formulas reporting strong R2 values may have resulted from tailoring to surgeons' technique. Variation between cohorts is inevitable; however, we expect reliable results given our large sample. It is reasonable to conclude that existing formulas are not accurate representations of resection weights and thus are unreliable for surgical planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":"93 5","pages":"643-648"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resection Weight Formulas for Reduction Mammoplasty: A Systematic Review and Regression Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Nisha Gupta, Christian X Lava, Sami Ferdousian, Karen R Li, Jenna C Bekeny, Kenneth L Fan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Estimating resection weight for patients undergoing reduction mammoplasty (RM) informs surgical planning and outcomes. Existing formulas have limitations that make insurance coverage and accurate surgical planning challenging. We identified the most commonly used scales to evaluate their accuracy in estimating resection weight by applying them to a database of patients to compare calculated and actual resection weights.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A database search was conducted using combinations of relevant terms. A regression analysis was conducted using formulas with strong R2 values (0.72-0.93) on a cohort of 1128 RM patients at a single institution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 570 articles were identified. Fourteen manuscripts (n = 2232 patients [3320 breasts]) were ultimately included for review. Data on incisional patterns, pedicle supply, and breast measurements, such as sternal notch to nipple distance (n = 8 [57.1%]) or nipple to inframammary fold distance (n = 5 [35.7%]), were recorded. R2 values in our cohort (>500 g, n = 891; <500 g, n = 237) were calculated via regression analyses with five formulas: Appel (0.391 vs 0.146), Boukovalas (0.3552 vs 0.043), Descamps (0.391 vs 0.238), Eder (0.328 vs 0.114), and Kocak (0.3283 vs R2 indeterminate).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis suggests that formulas reporting strong R2 values may have resulted from tailoring to surgeons' technique. Variation between cohorts is inevitable; however, we expect reliable results given our large sample. It is reasonable to conclude that existing formulas are not accurate representations of resection weights and thus are unreliable for surgical planning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"93 5\",\"pages\":\"643-648\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004114\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:估算接受乳房缩小成形术(RM)患者的切除重量可为手术规划和结果提供依据。现有的计算公式有其局限性,使保险范围和准确的手术计划面临挑战。我们确定了最常用的量表,通过将其应用于患者数据库来比较计算和实际切除重量,从而评估它们在估计切除重量方面的准确性:方法:使用相关术语组合进行数据库搜索。方法:使用相关术语组合进行数据库搜索,使用R2值较高(0.72-0.93)的公式对一家机构的1128名RM患者进行回归分析:结果:共发现 570 篇文章。最终有 14 篇文章(n = 2232 名患者 [3320 个乳房])被纳入审查范围。我们记录了有关切口模式、蒂供应和乳房测量的数据,如胸骨切迹到乳头的距离(n = 8 [57.1%])或乳头到乳房下皱褶的距离(n = 5 [35.7%])。我们队列中的 R2 值(大于 500 g,n = 891;结论:我们的分析表明,在我们的队列中,R2 值的计算公式具有很高的可信度:我们的分析表明,报告 R2 值较高的公式可能是根据外科医生的技术定制的。不同队列之间的差异不可避免;不过,鉴于我们的样本量较大,我们预计结果是可靠的。我们有理由得出结论,现有公式并不能准确反映切除权重,因此用于手术规划并不可靠。
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
Resection Weight Formulas for Reduction Mammoplasty: A Systematic Review and Regression Analysis.

Purpose: Estimating resection weight for patients undergoing reduction mammoplasty (RM) informs surgical planning and outcomes. Existing formulas have limitations that make insurance coverage and accurate surgical planning challenging. We identified the most commonly used scales to evaluate their accuracy in estimating resection weight by applying them to a database of patients to compare calculated and actual resection weights.

Methods: A database search was conducted using combinations of relevant terms. A regression analysis was conducted using formulas with strong R2 values (0.72-0.93) on a cohort of 1128 RM patients at a single institution.

Results: A total of 570 articles were identified. Fourteen manuscripts (n = 2232 patients [3320 breasts]) were ultimately included for review. Data on incisional patterns, pedicle supply, and breast measurements, such as sternal notch to nipple distance (n = 8 [57.1%]) or nipple to inframammary fold distance (n = 5 [35.7%]), were recorded. R2 values in our cohort (>500 g, n = 891; <500 g, n = 237) were calculated via regression analyses with five formulas: Appel (0.391 vs 0.146), Boukovalas (0.3552 vs 0.043), Descamps (0.391 vs 0.238), Eder (0.328 vs 0.114), and Kocak (0.3283 vs R2 indeterminate).

Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that formulas reporting strong R2 values may have resulted from tailoring to surgeons' technique. Variation between cohorts is inevitable; however, we expect reliable results given our large sample. It is reasonable to conclude that existing formulas are not accurate representations of resection weights and thus are unreliable for surgical planning.

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
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Changing Perspectives in Mastectomy: The Case for Nipple Preservation. Clinical Outcomes of Gender-Affirming Surgery in Individuals With Connective Tissue Disorders. Hourglass Constriction of a Single Fascicle of the Anterior Interosseous Nerve: A Case Report. Interprogram Differences in Core General, Core Plastic, and Plastic Surgery-Adjacent Training. Simple Approach to Cosmetic Medial Epicanthoplasty: A Modification of the Skin Redraping Method.
×
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