Analyzing Regional Differences over a 15-Year Trend of One-Stage versus Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction in 941,191 Postmastectomy Patients

2016 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 1e-14e ◽  
Author(s):  
Parisa Kamali ◽  
Pieter G. L. Koolen ◽  
Ahmed M. S. Ibrahim ◽  
Marek A. Paul ◽  
Rieky E. Dikmans ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. S32
Author(s):  
I. Capuano ◽  
P. Orsaria ◽  
E. Caredda ◽  
F. Foglio ◽  
F. Saraceno ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 529-535.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir A. Ghaffarian ◽  
Claire L. Griffin ◽  
Larry W. Kraiss ◽  
Mark R. Sarfati ◽  
Benjamin S. Brooke

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 505-515
Author(s):  
Khaled Emara ◽  
Ramy Diab ◽  
Mohamed El-Kersh ◽  
Ayman Mounir ◽  
Ahmed Badreldin

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (04) ◽  
pp. 264-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelia Trisliana Perdanasari ◽  
Amjed Abu-Ghname ◽  
Sarth Raj ◽  
Sebastian J. Winocour ◽  
Rene D. Largo

AbstractImplant-based reconstruction (IBR) remains the most commonly utilized breast reconstruction option for post-mastectomy patients. IBR can be approached as either a one-stage reconstruction or a two-stage reconstruction. Facilitated by improvements in surgical technology and advanced techniques, one-stage reconstruction, also known as direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, involves the insertion of an implant at the time of mastectomy. The decision to pursue either a DTI or a two-stage reconstruction is based on several factors, including the patient's overall health, expected risk of postoperative complications, and associated costs to both the patient and hospital.


2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 519-526
Author(s):  
C. Ribes ◽  
T. Masquefa ◽  
H. Dutronc ◽  
C. De Seynes ◽  
M. Dupon ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 143 (3) ◽  
pp. 912-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic Henn ◽  
Matthias S. T. Wähmann ◽  
Miriam Horsch ◽  
Svetlana Hetjens ◽  
Thomas Kremer ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document