FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2320537893> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2320537893 endingPage "440e" @default.
• W2320537893 startingPage "438e" @default.
• W2320537893 abstract "Sir:FigureWe had the great pleasure of reading the interesting article by Roostaeian et al. published recently in this Journal,1 and we congratulate the authors on their study. The two-stage tissue expander/implant technique is currently the most commonly performed procedure in breast reconstruction. A wide variety of procedures have been used for breast reconstruction, and the choice of technique depends on the needs, body habitus, general conditions, and preference of the patient. The advent of oncologically safe skin-sparing mastectomies and the improved cosmetic results achieved by these techniques have influenced and improved the aesthetic quality of breast reconstruction, especially from implants.2,3 The authors showed in their study that one-stage breast reconstruction is not burdened with more complications and a higher revision rate. In any event, the majority of their patients had grade 1 ptosis or less in approximately 80 percent and only 20 percent of large-breasted patients. Furthermore, they did not mention whether they had used total or partial muscular coverage of expander/implant, or acellular dermal matrices to achieve total muscular coverage, especially in the immediate implant-based breast reconstruction group. This information is extremely important for analyzing the possible complications and properly judging the aesthetic outcome. Finally, these factors might influence the results and explain why there is no difference in one-stage versus two-stage implant breast reconstruction groups. In our Unit, we always perform total muscular coverage of the device, and we think that with expanders there is a decreased risk of mastectomy skin flap necrosis because of less tension. Furthermore, immediate placement of large implants underneath the pectoralis major muscle without adequate expansion can be associated with increased postoperative pain and an inferior aesthetic result. Often, for immediate and adequate implant coverage, acellular dermal matrix is needed, and this yields an increased cost and greater risk of complications. Breast reconstruction using expanders/implants provides an excellent option for properly selected patients. We believe that patients with small, minimally ptotic breasts are the best candidates for implant reconstruction alone (Fig. 1), whereas patients with larger, more ptotic breasts should require a two-stage approach and a matching procedure to attain symmetry. The matching procedure can be a simple augmentation or mastopexy, or can involve a breast reduction (Fig. 2).Fig. 1: One-stage implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy and contralateral augmentation mammaplasty in a 39-year-old patient.Fig. 2: A 44-year-old patient underwent skin-sparing mastectomy and two-stage breast reconstruction with an extraprojected implant, restoration of the inframammary fold, and contralateral reduction mammaplasty.For us, immediate one-stage reconstruction is limited to prophylactic and risk-reducing mastectomy, especially in small and nonptotic breasts, whereas with this two-stage technique, we are able to achieve good quality breast reconstruction using anatomically shaped expanders and implants in all types of patients, especially in those with large/ptotic breasts and in those requiring adjuvant chemotherapy, which can cause weight gain, which could be a cause of late breast asymmetry. Contralateral breast surgery can improve patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome, especially in young patients. Our only concern is that the patients have to undergo two operations with the additional costs of two prostheses. The combined cost of the anatomically shaped expander and implant is over one and a half times the cost of a single mammary prosthesis. Despite these limitations, we consider the quality and aesthetic outcome of reconstruction justified in the use of two-stage technique. Stefano Bonomi, M.D. Fernanda Settembrini, M.D. Department of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery and Burn Unit Center, Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda, Milan, Italy DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication." @default.
• W2320537893 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2320537893 creator A5022492529 @default.
• W2320537893 creator A5029664284 @default.
• W2320537893 date "2013-03-01" @default.
• W2320537893 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2320537893 title "Comparison of Immediate Implant-Based versus Staged Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction Technique" @default.
• W2320537893 cites W2056287949 @default.
• W2320537893 cites W4293162708 @default.
• W2320537893 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31827c7124" @default.
• W2320537893 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23446597" @default.
• W2320537893 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2320537893 type Work @default.
• W2320537893 sameAs 2320537893 @default.
• W2320537893 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2320537893 countsByYear W23205378932014 @default.
• W2320537893 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2320537893 hasAuthorship W2320537893A5022492529 @default.
• W2320537893 hasAuthorship W2320537893A5029664284 @default.
• W2320537893 hasBestOaLocation W23205378931 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C146357865 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C2776964564 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C2777645973 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C2777757722 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C2781001896 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C2781194658 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C2910162288 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C121608353 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C126322002 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C141071460 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C146357865 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C151730666 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C2776964564 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C2777645973 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C2777757722 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C2781001896 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C2781194658 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C2781411149 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C2910162288 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C530470458 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C71924100 @default.
• W2320537893 hasConceptScore W2320537893C86803240 @default.
• W2320537893 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2320537893 hasLocation W23205378931 @default.
• W2320537893 hasOpenAccess W2320537893 @default.
• W2320537893 hasPrimaryLocation W23205378931 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W1604693890 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W1963850145 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W1973707850 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W2003325499 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W2006277411 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W2096788630 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W2979620574 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W3009493140 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W3017497942 @default.
• W2320537893 hasRelatedWork W4322745707 @default.
• W2320537893 hasVolume "131" @default.
• W2320537893 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2320537893 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2320537893 magId "2320537893" @default.
• W2320537893 workType "article" @default.