Literature DB >> 27294035

The use of the Alexis(®) device in breast augmentation to improve outcomes: a comparative randomized case-control survey.

Luca Andrea Dessy1, Nefer Fallico1, Francesco Serratore1, Diego Ribuffo1, Marco Mazzocchi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We present our experience in using a disposable wound retractor commonly used in abdominal surgery named Alexis(®) (Applied Medical Resources Corporation, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, USA), during breast augmentation in order to improve outcomes, particularly final scar length.
METHODS: Between January 2010 and November 2012, 40 patients undergoing breast augmentation with an inframammary approach were enrolled in the present study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 underwent breast augmentation with the standard technique; group 2 underwent breast augmentation by using the Alexis(®) (Applied Medical Resources Corporation) device. Patients were followed-up for a 12-month period. The time of surgery, the days of drain duration and the length of the incisions were recorded for both groups and statistical significance was evaluated with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Also, final scar appearance was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: Patients in group 2 reported a lower incidence of hematomas and had shorter drain duration. The difference in scar length between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). Surgeons and patients were mostly satisfied with the final appearance of the scar.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Alexis(®) (Applied Medical Resources Corporation) device has proven useful in reducing the length of the inframammary incision. Interestingly, the increased visibility obtained with the use of the Alexis device allowed a better hemostasis, as suggested by the shorter drain duration and lower incidence of hematomas. However, its use prolongs the operative time, for which we recommend surgeons to allow themselves some time to become familiar with the device. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level I, evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alexis® device; breast augmentation

Year:  2016        PMID: 27294035      PMCID: PMC4884688          DOI: 10.21037/gs.2015.09.02

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  24 in total

1.  Alternatives and trade-offs in breast augmentation.

Authors:  J B Tebbetts
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.017

2.  Subclinical infection as a possible cause of significant breast capsules.

Authors:  David T Netscher
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Contamination in smooth gel breast implant placement: testing a funnel versus digital insertion technique in a cadaver model.

Authors:  Hunter R Moyer; Bahair Ghazi; Neil Saunders; Albert Losken
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 4.283

4.  Randomized, controlled investigation of the anti-infective properties of the Alexis retractor/protector of incision sites.

Authors:  Tetsuya Horiuchi; Hiroyuki Tanishima; Kouji Tamagawa; Ichiro Matsuura; Hiroaki Nakai; Yoshiharu Shouno; Hideaki Tsubakihara; Masaya Inoue; Katsuyoshi Tabuse
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2007-01

5.  An illuminating no-touch device for breast augmentation.

Authors:  Michael Sg Bell; Daniel McKee
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2009

6.  Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction.

Authors:  S L Spear; J L Baker
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Inserting the Même prosthesis.

Authors:  R L Dolsky
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 8.  Wound drainage after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast.

Authors:  Christa A Stojkovic; Mark J C Smeulders; Chantal M Van der Horst; Sameena M Khan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-03-28

9.  [Should we drain after pre-pectoral breast implants? Analysis of a cohort of 400 patients operated for breast augmentation with pre-pectoral silicone implants].

Authors:  P Bogaert; P Perrot; F Duteille
Journal:  Ann Chir Plast Esthet       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 0.660

10.  Augmentation mammaplasty: a review of 18 years.

Authors:  T M Biggs; J Cukier; L F Worthing
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  1 in total

1.  Wound protectors for improved exposure in open hernia repair.

Authors:  J Lawson; A McGill; H Meares; H Coleman; C Riveros; A Martin
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 4.739

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.