Literature DB >> 32110642

Drainage Collection After Endoscopic-Assisted Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty Using Cold or Electrosurgical Separation of Interpectoral Space.

Zifei Li1, Dali Mu1, Boyang Xu1, Chenglong Wang1, Hao Cheng1, Shangshan Li1, Jun Qi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty breast augmentation offers several advantages over other augmentation methods. Nonetheless, this procedure is fraught with some problems, including greater surgical trauma due to the longer separation area. We hypothesized that cold separation of the interpectoral space could reduce surgical injury in comparison to the electrosurgical method. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endoscopic-assisted transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty using cold separation versus electrosurgical separation of the interpectoral space.
METHODS: In this prospective clinical trial, cold and electrosurgical separation of the interpectoral space were achieved using a separation shovel and monopolar electrotome, respectively. A total of 20 patients who visited our department in Beijing, China, for primary breast augmentation surgeries from October 1, 2017, and May 31, 2018, were included. The primary outcome was total postoperative drainage volume. The secondary outcomes were operative time, daily drainage volume, daily pain as assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), and reoperation rate. Quantitative data were compared using independent-samples t test. Chi-square test was used to compare 2 classified indexes.
RESULTS: The total drainage volume was significantly lower in the cold separation group than in the electrosurgical separation group (170.45 ± 75.40 mL vs 281.05 ± 148.43 mL; P = .005). The VAS score on the first postoperative day was significantly lower in the cold separation group than in the electrosurgical separation group (6.45 ± 1.93 vs 7.55 ± 1.43; P = .048). Two (20%) reoperations owing to postoperative pain or implant stiffness were performed in the electrosurgical separation group.
CONCLUSIONS: Cold separation is more conducive to reducing drainage, relieving postoperative pain, and causing less damage than the electrosurgical method in endoscopic-assisted transaxillary dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty.
© 2019 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  interpectoral space; mammoplasty; transaxillary augmentation

Year:  2019        PMID: 32110642      PMCID: PMC7016391          DOI: 10.1177/2292550319880913

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)        ISSN: 2292-5503            Impact factor:   0.947


  48 in total

Review 1.  Surgical Approaches to Breast Augmentation: The Transaxillary Approach.

Authors:  Louis L Strock
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 2.017

2.  Improvements in transaxillary breast augmentation.

Authors:  Igor Niechajev
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 2.326

3.  Axillary endoscopic breast augmentation: processes derived from a 28-year experience to optimize outcomes.

Authors:  John B Tebbetts
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Comparison of the safety of electrotome, Harmonic scalpel, and LigaSure for management of thyroid surgery.

Authors:  Xiaodong Yang; Jian Cao; Yichao Yan; Fangfang Liu; Tao Li; Long Han; Chunxiang Ye; Shuying Zheng; Shan Wang; Yingjiang Ye; Kewei Jiang
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 3.147

5.  Drains and breast implants.

Authors:  H M Goldberg
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Influence of some operative and postoperative factors on capsular contracture around breast prostheses.

Authors:  C J Hipps; R Raju; R E Straith
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Pain control in augmentation mammaplasty using indwelling catheters in 687 consecutive patients: data analysis.

Authors:  Peter T Pacik; Craig E Nelson; Catherine Werner
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.283

8.  Seroma formation following breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Ernest A Gonzalez; Edward C Saltzstein; Carola S Riedner; Brian K Nelson
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  A retrospective study of primary breast augmentation: recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Haishan Shi; Chuan Cao; Xiaoge Li; Liang Chen; Shirong Li
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-10-15

10.  The influence of time on human breast capsule histology: smooth and textured silicone-surfaced implants.

Authors:  L E Wyatt; J D Sinow; J S Wollman; D A Sami; T A Miller
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  A Shakespearean Dilemma in Breast Augmentation: to Use Drains or not? a Systematic Review : Drains in Breast Augmentation.

Authors:  Matteo Torresetti; Yasmine Zavalloni; Benedetta Peltristo; Giovanni Di Benedetto
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 2.708

2.  Comparison Of Endoscopic Transaxillary And Peri-areolar Approaches In Breast Augmentation With Smooth Implants.

Authors:  Ha H Nguyen; Linh T To
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.708

3.  LncRNA LOC146880 promotes esophageal squamous cell carcinoma progression via miR-328-5p/FSCN1/MAPK axis.

Authors:  Jianwei Tang; Honglei Xu; Qiang Liu; Jianan Zheng; Cheng Pan; Zhihua Li; Wei Wen; Jun Wang; Quan Zhu; Zhibo Wang; Liang Chen
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 5.682

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.