Literature DB >> 33864116

Hematoma After Non-Oncologic Breast Procedures: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence.

David A Daar1, Jonathan M Bekisz2, Michael V Chiodo2, Evellyn M DeMitchell-Rodriguez2, Pierre B Saadeh2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hematoma after non-oncologic breast surgery is a common concern requiring expeditious treatment. The purpose of this study is to perform an evidence-based review of perioperative factors that may contribute to hematoma in non-oncologic breast procedures.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed of non-oncologic breast procedures: breast augmentation, single-stage augmentation-mastopexy, mastopexy, and reduction. In total, 28 studies highlighting incidence and potential risk factors for hematoma were included; overall level of evidence was established regarding each perioperative factor examined and hematoma rate.
RESULTS: The hematoma rate in breast augmentation ranges from 0.2 to 5.7%. There is inconclusive evidence to support an association between pocket choice or incision location and hematoma rate (Level III) and no evidence of an association between implant type and hematoma (Level V). Single-stage augmentation-mastopexy may have a lower hematoma rate than augmentation alone (Level II). Hematoma may increase the risk of capsular contracture (Level III). In breast reduction, the hematoma rate ranges from 1.0 to 9.3%. Evidence of an association between incision choice and hematoma rate is inconclusive (Level III). Use of epinephrine-containing solution, pedicle choice, and resection weight do not appear to affect hematoma rate (Level V, II, and II, respectively). The use of postoperative drains and ketorolac do not affect the incidence of hematoma (Level I and III, respectively). Intraoperative hypotension may increase the risk of hematoma after breast reduction (Level III).
CONCLUSIONS: Breast hematomas are not uncommon complications. Current literature lacks ample evidence for risk factors for hematoma after non-oncologic breast procedures, warranting further, high-powered investigations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Augmentation-mastopexy; Breast augmentation; Breast reduction; Mastopexy hematoma; Outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33864116     DOI: 10.1007/s00266-021-02276-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg        ISSN: 0364-216X            Impact factor:   2.326


  47 in total

1.  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

2.  Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation.

Authors:  S E Gabriel; J E Woods; W M O'Fallon; C M Beard; L T Kurland; L J Melton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-03-06       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The level of evidence pyramid: indicating levels of evidence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery articles.

Authors:  Daniel Sullivan; Kevin C Chung; F Felmont Eaves; Rod J Rohrich
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 4.  A systematic review of single-stage augmentation-mastopexy.

Authors:  Nima Khavanin; Sumanas W Jordan; Aksharananda Rambachan; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Outcomes in primary breast augmentation: a single surgeon's review of 1539 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Ron Barry Somogyi; Mitchell H Brown
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Prospective comparative clinical evaluation of 784 consecutive cases of breast augmentation and vertical mammaplasty, performed individually and in combination.

Authors:  Eric Swanson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Effect of incision choice on outcomes in primary breast augmentation.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Jacobson; Margaret E Gatti; Adam D Schaffner; Lauren M Hill; Scott L Spear
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.283

8.  Benchmarking outcomes in plastic surgery: national complication rates for abdominoplasty and breast augmentation.

Authors:  Amy K Alderman; E Dale Collins; Rachel Streu; James C Grotting; Amy L Sulkin; Peter Neligan; Phillip C Haeck; Karol A Gutowski
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Incidence and Risk Factors for Major Hematomas in Aesthetic Surgery: Analysis of 129,007 Patients.

Authors:  Christodoulos Kaoutzanis; Julian Winocour; Varun Gupta; Nishant Ganesh Kumar; Konrad Sarosiek; Blair Wormer; Christopher Tokin; James C Grotting; K Kye Higdon
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 4.283

10.  Review of 494 Consecutive Breast Augmentation Patients: System to Improve Patient Outcomes and Satisfaction.

Authors:  John F Diaz
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-10-20
View more
  1 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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.