scholarly journals Single-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using a Skin-Sparing Incision and Definitive Saline Implants Compared with a Two-Stage Reconstruction Using Tissue Expansion Plus Implants

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 117-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew A Plant ◽  
Christopher G Scilley ◽  
Mark Speechley
1990 ◽  
Vol 152 (12) ◽  
pp. 632-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian S Russell ◽  
John P Collins ◽  
Anthony D Holmes ◽  
Julian A Smith

2013 ◽  
Vol 131 (5) ◽  
pp. 953-961 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naveen M. Krishnan ◽  
Abhishek Chatterjee ◽  
Michael M. Van Vliet ◽  
Stephen G. Powell ◽  
Joseph M. Rosen ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 120-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timme M.A.J. van Vuuren ◽  
Elizabeth R.M. van Haaren ◽  
Theo J. vd Kar ◽  
Johannes W. Kortleve ◽  
Clarissa I.E. Scheeren

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 658
Author(s):  
Rishikesh Parmeshwar ◽  
Wim Chiu ◽  
Sree Sundara Rajan

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
O Kelly ◽  
I Balasubramanian ◽  
C Cullinane ◽  
R Prichard

Abstract Background Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction is increasingly performed as the preferred method of immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy. The proposed advantages of DTI over two-stage tissue expander (TE)/implant reconstruction relate to fewer surgical procedures. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DTI versus conventional TE/implant breast reconstruction. Method A systematic review was performed (PubMed, Embase, Scopus) to identify relevant studies that compared outcomes between DTI and TE/Implant reconstructions. Publications up to October 2020 were included. The primary outcome was overall complication rate. Secondary outcomes included infection rate and implant loss. Results Nineteen studies, including 32,971 implant-based breast reconstructions, were analysed. Median age was 48 years. Mean BMI was 25.9. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Duration of follow up ranged from 1-60 months. Overall complications were significantly more likely to occur in the DTI group (OR 1.81 [1.17-2.79]). Overall complications refers to all reported complications including seroma, haematoma, would dehiscence, infection, skin necrosis and capsular contracture. Implant loss was also significantly higher in the DTI cohort (OR 1.31 [1.12-1.78]). There was no significant difference in infection rates between the two groups. Subgroup analyses, focusing on high-powered multicentre studies showed that the risks of overall complications were significantly higher in the DTI group (OR 1.51 [1.06-2.14]). Conclusions This meta-analysis demonstrates significantly greater risk of complications and implant loss in the DTI breast reconstruction group. These findings serve to aid both patients and clinicians in the decision-making process regarding implant reconstruction following mastectomy


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document