Comparison of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes between Chest Wall Perforator Flaps and Therapeutic Mammoplasty.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
09
04
2021
accepted:
12
07
2021
entrez:
13
9
2021
pubmed:
14
9
2021
medline:
14
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Chest wall perforator flaps (CPF) and therapeutic mammoplasty (TM) are often done in patients with anticipated poor cosmetic outcome with level 1 breast conservation surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the complications and oncological outcomes between CPF and TM. Prospectively collected data of breast conservation surgery between September 2016 and January 2021 by a single surgeon were reviewed. Specific outcomes included complications needing intervention, re-excision and mastectomy rate, locoregional recurrence, and distant metastasis. Patients were followed up at 3 months and then every 12 months. Statistical analysis included chi-squared test and independent There was no statistically significant difference between CPF and TM with regard to patient characteristics except for BMI and bra cup size, which was significantly higher in the TM group. One patient who had TM returned to the operating room for a hematoma evacuation, and one patient who had CPF had fat grafting, for unsatisfactory cosmetic outcome. Five of the 30 patients having CPF had further re-excision surgery for inadequate margins, but none needed mastectomy, and four of the 43 patients having TM had further surgery (one had re-excision of margins and three had mastectomy) and this was not statistically significant ( There is no significant difference in early complications and oncological outcomes between CPF and TM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Chest wall perforator flaps (CPF) and therapeutic mammoplasty (TM) are often done in patients with anticipated poor cosmetic outcome with level 1 breast conservation surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the complications and oncological outcomes between CPF and TM.
METHODS
METHODS
Prospectively collected data of breast conservation surgery between September 2016 and January 2021 by a single surgeon were reviewed. Specific outcomes included complications needing intervention, re-excision and mastectomy rate, locoregional recurrence, and distant metastasis. Patients were followed up at 3 months and then every 12 months. Statistical analysis included chi-squared test and independent
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was no statistically significant difference between CPF and TM with regard to patient characteristics except for BMI and bra cup size, which was significantly higher in the TM group. One patient who had TM returned to the operating room for a hematoma evacuation, and one patient who had CPF had fat grafting, for unsatisfactory cosmetic outcome. Five of the 30 patients having CPF had further re-excision surgery for inadequate margins, but none needed mastectomy, and four of the 43 patients having TM had further surgery (one had re-excision of margins and three had mastectomy) and this was not statistically significant (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There is no significant difference in early complications and oncological outcomes between CPF and TM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34513544
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003811
pmc: PMC8423390
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e3811Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
Références
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Nov;140(5):746e-747e
pubmed: 29068951
Br J Surg. 2012 Oct;99(10):1389-95
pubmed: 22961518
J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jul;110(1):90-5
pubmed: 24889526
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Mar;143(3):477e-487e
pubmed: 30817638
J Adv Pract Oncol. 2014 May;5(3):181-7
pubmed: 25089217
Clin Plast Surg. 1976 Apr;3(2):193-203
pubmed: 1261176
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 May;68(5):686-91
pubmed: 25660559
Br J Surg. 2018 Dec;105(13):1778-1792
pubmed: 30132807
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2019 Sep;31(9):664-668
pubmed: 31229382
Breast. 2001 Apr;10(2):124-6
pubmed: 14965571
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(6):644-52
pubmed: 16716957
Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2016 Dec 19;10:223-228
pubmed: 28008267
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 May;17(5):1375-91
pubmed: 20140531
Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 1990;35(2):117-22
pubmed: 1696083
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987 Apr;79(4):567-72
pubmed: 3823249
Breast. 2015 Feb;24(1):38-45
pubmed: 25435332
Am J Surg. 2008 Oct;196(4):512-8
pubmed: 18809053
Arch Plast Surg. 2020 Mar;47(2):153-159
pubmed: 32203992