Literature DB >> 19661037

Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a history in evolution.

Warren M Rozen1, Amrish K S Rajkomar, Namrata S Anavekar, Mark W Ashton.   

Abstract

Although the need for mastectomy has been evident for many years, postmastectomy reconstruction has been recognized as an achievable outcome for only a little over a century. A review of the evolution of both autologous and prosthetic options for reconstruction was undertaken. The earliest attempts at reconstruction used autologous techniques that were either unsuccessful, not reproducible, or were associated with significant morbidity. Prosthetic techniques became sought after, with silicone prostheses widely used until concerns about potential adverse effects led to the investigation of alternate options. With these concerns shown to be unfounded, silicone and saline prostheses evolved with successive generations of implants. Concurrent advances in reconstructive surgery led to a revival in autologous techniques for breast reconstruction, with microsurgical free-tissue transfer potentiating a new range of potential donor sites. The abdominal wall became the donor site of choice, and with the advent of perforator flaps, morbidity associated with flap harvest was minimized. In cases where the abdominal wall is unsuitable, flaps such as the superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps, the musculocutaneous gracilis flap, and the "stacked" deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap are frequently used options. The development of minimally invasive techniques for implant placement and flap harvest, such as endoscopy, continue to evolve, and research in tissue engineering offers a vision for a future without the need for a donor site.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19661037     DOI: 10.3816/CBC.2009.n.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer        ISSN: 1526-8209            Impact factor:   3.225


  13 in total

Review 1.  The evolution of cancer surgery and future perspectives.

Authors:  Lynda Wyld; Riccardo A Audisio; Graeme J Poston
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  A Brief History of Breast Cancer: Part I: Surgical domination reinvented.

Authors:  Ritu Lakhtakia
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2014-04-07

3.  Impact of insurance payer and socioeconomic status on type of autologous breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Jacob Dinis; Alexandra Junn; Fouad Chouairi; Michael Mercier; Tomer Avraham; Evan Matros; Michael Alperovich
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 2.388

4.  A scientometric analysis of 20 years of research on breast reconstruction surgery: a guide for research design and journal selection.

Authors:  Mehrdad Moghimi; Mehdi Fathi; Ali Marashi; Freshteh Kamani; Gholamreza Habibi; Armin Hirbod-Mobarakeh; Marjan Ghaemi; Mahdi Hosseinian-Sarajehlou
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2013-03-11

5.  Silicone implant and primary breast ALK1-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma, fact or fiction?

Authors:  Shiyong Li; Andrew K Lee
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2009-10-15

6.  Adenovirally delivered enzyme prodrug therapy with herpes simplex virus-thymidine kinase in composite tissue free flaps shows therapeutic efficacy in rat models of glioma.

Authors:  Rohit Seth; Aadil A Khan; Timothy D Pencavel; Michelle J Wilkinson; Joan N Kyula; Guy Simpson; Hardev Pandha; Alan Melcher; Richard Vile; Paul A Harris; Kevin J Harrington
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with breast implant: a case report.

Authors:  Afsaneh Rajabiani; Hosein Arab; Abolhasan Emami; Ali Manafi; Navid Bazzaz; Hiva Saffar
Journal:  World J Plast Surg       Date:  2012-01

8.  Breast implants and breast cancer.

Authors:  Davood Mehrabani; Ail Manafi
Journal:  World J Plast Surg       Date:  2012-07

9.  Transformation of Breast Reconstruction via Additive Biomanufacturing.

Authors:  Mohit P Chhaya; Elizabeth R Balmayor; Dietmar W Hutmacher; Jan-Thorsten Schantz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Increased Flap Weight and Decreased Perforator Number Predict Fat Necrosis in DIEP Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Carolyn L Mulvey; Carisa M Cooney; Francis F Daily; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Onyebuchi U Ogbuago; Damon S Cooney; Ariel N Rad; Michele A Manahan; Gedge D Rosson; Justin M Sacks
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2013-06-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.