Literature DB >> 32901309

Comparisons Between Normal Body Mass Index and Overweight Patients Who Underwent Unilateral Microsurgical Breast Reconstructions.

Ming-Huei Cheng1,2, Satomi Koide3, Courtney Chen4, Yi-Ling Lin3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study compared the outcomes of unilateral microsurgical breast reconstructions using abdomen-based flaps between normal body mass index (BMI; 18.5 < BMI < 24.9 kg/m2) and overweight (25 < BMI < 29.9 kg/m2) patients.
METHODS: Between March 2000 and December 2015, patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstructions using abdomen-based flaps were retrospectively evaluated. Outcomes variables evaluated included the flap-used weight, flap-used/flap-harvested percentage, flap-used/specimen percentage, complication rates, revision procedures, and quality of life using the Breast-Q questionnaires.
RESULTS: A total of 415 patients with a mean age of 45.3 ± 8.2 years underwent 418 abdomen-based flaps. The overall success rate was 98.8%, with 99.1% and 97.9% of patients included in the normal BMI and overweight groups, respectively (p = 0.36). The mean flap-used weight and flap-used/flap-harvested values of 461 ± 132.1 g and 82.2 ± 11.6%, respectively, in the normal BMI group were statistically different from values of 610 ± 148.9 g and 71.4 ± 14.1% in the overweight group (both p < 0.01). The mean flap-used/specimen percentage was 118.5 ± 32.9 and 111.7 ± 36.6 in the normal BMI and overweight groups, respectively (p = 0.26). At a mean follow-up of 135 ± 55.4 months, there were no statistical differences between the two groups in terms of total complication rates (25.7% vs. 29.2%; p = 0.30), revision times (36.1% vs. 36.5%; p = 0.91) and all four domains (all p > 0.05) of the Breast-Q.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a normal BMI required a smaller flap-used weight but higher flap-used/flap-harvested percentage for unilateral microsurgical breast reconstructions that could be performed with a high success rate and comparable complication and revision rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32901309     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09076-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  27 in total

1.  Bilateral autologous breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps: Review of a single surgeon's early experience.

Authors:  Raghunandan Venkat; Johnson C Lee; Ariel N Rad; Michele A Manahan; Gedge D Rosson
Journal:  Microsurgery       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 2.425

2.  Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction in Patients With Previous Bariatric Surgery: Is It Safe and Feasible?

Authors:  Carlos A Martinez; Jules A Walters; Erika A Sato; Jason J Hall; Sean G Boutros
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.539

3.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: long-term consistency of satisfaction and adverse effects and the significance of informed decision-making, quality of life, and personality traits.

Authors:  Marlene H Frost; Tanya L Hoskin; Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Joanne L Johnson; Judy C Boughey
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Reconstructive outcomes in patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Authors:  Melissa A Crosby; Patrick B Garvey; Jesse C Selber; David M Adelman; Justin M Sacks; Mark T Villa; Heather Y Lin; Stephen J Park; Donald P Baumann
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Current trends in breast reconstruction: survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2010.

Authors:  Raffi Gurunluoglu; Aslin Gurunluoglu; Susan A Williams; Seth Tebockhorst
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.539

6.  The volume-outcome relationship for immediate breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Neil Tanna; John L Clayton; Jason Roostaeian; Adam D Perry; Christopher A Crisera
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Cost-effectiveness of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus routine surveillance in patients with unilateral breast cancer.

Authors:  Benjamin Zendejas; James P Moriarty; Jamie O'Byrne; Amy C Degnim; David R Farley; Judy C Boughey
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in Swedish women at high risk of breast cancer: a national survey.

Authors:  Brita Arver; Karin Isaksson; Hans Atterhem; Annika Baan; Leif Bergkvist; Yvonne Brandberg; Hans Ehrencrona; Monica Emanuelsson; Henrik Hellborg; Karin Henriksson; Per Karlsson; Niklas Loman; Jonas Lundberg; Anita Ringberg; Marie Stenmark Askmalm; Marie Wickman; Kerstin Sandelin
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Microsurgical breast reconstruction for nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  Neil Tanna; P Niclas Broer; Katie E Weichman; Michael Alperovich; Christina Y Ahn; Robert J Allen; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp; Pierre B Saadeh; Jamie P Levine
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Prophylactic mastectomy and reconstruction: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Scott L Spear; Karl A Schwarz; Mark L Venturi; Todd Barbosa; Ali Al-Attar
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.730

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.