Literature DB >> 8972334

Comparison of mammographic image quality in various methods of reconstructive breast surgery.

F Lindbichler1, H Hoflehner, F Schmidt, G R Pierer, J Raith, J Umschaden, K W Preidler.   

Abstract

The purpose of our study was to evaluate mammographic image quality of various methods of reconstructive breast surgery with specific reference to the possibility of diagnosis of recurrent tumors. A total of 39 patients who underwent breast reconstruction following modified radical mastectomy were subject to clinical and mammographic examination. Three groups were formed: (a) autonomous tissue reconstruction (TRAM-flap; n = 9), (b) submuscular silicon gel prostheses (n = 21), and (c) supramuscular silicon gel prostheses (n = 9). Mammographic image quality of the groups was compared by two radiologists working together using a point system where five specific criteria were valued and scored. The result was tabulated into three quality levels: good, acceptable, and limited. Mammograms were assessed as good, acceptable, or limited, respectively, as follows: group I: 7 (77.8%), 1 (11.1%), 1 (11.1%); group II: 4 (19%), 11 (52.4%), 6 (28.6%); group III: 3 (33.3%), 4 (44.5%), 2 (22.2%). The TRAM-flap method of reconstruction displays a high degree of mammographic image quality and therefore is preferable with respect to early diagnosis of recurrent tumors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8972334     DOI: 10.1007/bf00240708

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  10 in total

1.  Mammographic appearance following implant removal.

Authors:  N R Stewart; B S Monsees; J M Destouet; M A Rudloff
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Mammographic and CT findings after breast reconstruction with a rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap.

Authors:  E M Loyer; S S Kroll; C L David; R A DuBrow; H I Libshitz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Mammography after prosthesis placement for augmentation or reconstructive mammoplasty.

Authors:  D D Dershaw; T A Chaglassian
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Mammographic measurements before and after augmentation mammaplasty.

Authors:  M J Silverstein; N Handel; P Gamagami; E Waisman; E D Gierson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  A biostatistical study of locally recurrent breast carcinoma.

Authors:  W L Donegan; C M Perez-Mesa; F R Watson
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1966-03

6.  Improved imaging of the augmented breast.

Authors:  G W Eklund; R C Busby; S H Miller; J S Job
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  The psychological impact of immediate breast reconstruction for women with early breast cancer.

Authors:  L A Stevens; M H McGrath; R G Druss; S J Kister; F E Gump; K A Forde
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  The relative radiolucencies of breast implant filler materials.

Authors:  V L Young; G J Diehl; J Eichling; B S Monsees; J Destouet
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Breast cancer in women after augmentation mammoplasty.

Authors:  M J Silverstein; N Handel; P Gamagami; J R Waisman; E D Gierson; R J Rosser; R Steyskal; W Colburn
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1988-06

10.  The sooner the better: a study of psychological factors in women undergoing immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction.

Authors:  W S Schain; D K Wellisch; R O Pasnau; J Landsverk
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 18.112

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Local recurrence following mastectomy and autologous breast reconstruction: incidence, risk factors, and management.

Authors:  Siyu Wu; Miao Mo; Yujie Wang; Na Zhang; Jianwei Li; Genhong Di; Zhimin Shao; Jiong Wu; Guangyu Liu
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 4.147

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.