We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
[Skin sparing mastectomy with autologous immediate reconstruction: oncological risks and aesthetic results].
OBJECTIVE: Is the oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy (SSM) with immediate autologous reconstruction and improved aesthetic results comparable to postoperative findings in patients treated with modified radical mastectomy (MRM)?
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients with T1-2 breast carcinomas and contraindications for breast conserving therapy were treated by SSM and compared to 81 patients of the same age groups and MRM with regard to oncological and aesthetic data. In 33 (55%) patients the nipple areola complex (NAC) could be spared. For autologous tissue TRAM- and Latissimus dorsi-flaps were used. The mean follow-up was 40 (range 20-71) months.
RESULTS: The observed local recurrence rates were not significantly different (p = 0.443) after SSM (n = 3; 5.0%) or MRM (n = 5; 6.2%). Distant metastases and death were seen in 26.7% and 15.0% (SSM), respectively, and in 25.9% and 13.5% (MRM), respectively. Body mass index, operation time and postoperative haemoglobin concentration differed between both groups significantly (p < 0.001) but not the rate of complications (p = 0.232). Aesthetic results of SSM were judged as excellent or good in 90.0% of patients and in 83.4% of surgeons. Nine patients (11.1%) underwent a secondary breast reconstruction after MRM. Furthermore, 12 (14.8%) patients with MRM would prefer a SSM with immediate reconstruction in a similar situation.
CONCLUSION: Skin-sparing mastectomy improves aesthetic results to a high degree without increasing of local or distant recurrence rates. Skin-sparing mastectomy should be offered to selected patients with breast cancer as an alternative to modified radical mastectomy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients with T1-2 breast carcinomas and contraindications for breast conserving therapy were treated by SSM and compared to 81 patients of the same age groups and MRM with regard to oncological and aesthetic data. In 33 (55%) patients the nipple areola complex (NAC) could be spared. For autologous tissue TRAM- and Latissimus dorsi-flaps were used. The mean follow-up was 40 (range 20-71) months.
RESULTS: The observed local recurrence rates were not significantly different (p = 0.443) after SSM (n = 3; 5.0%) or MRM (n = 5; 6.2%). Distant metastases and death were seen in 26.7% and 15.0% (SSM), respectively, and in 25.9% and 13.5% (MRM), respectively. Body mass index, operation time and postoperative haemoglobin concentration differed between both groups significantly (p < 0.001) but not the rate of complications (p = 0.232). Aesthetic results of SSM were judged as excellent or good in 90.0% of patients and in 83.4% of surgeons. Nine patients (11.1%) underwent a secondary breast reconstruction after MRM. Furthermore, 12 (14.8%) patients with MRM would prefer a SSM with immediate reconstruction in a similar situation.
CONCLUSION: Skin-sparing mastectomy improves aesthetic results to a high degree without increasing of local or distant recurrence rates. Skin-sparing mastectomy should be offered to selected patients with breast cancer as an alternative to modified radical mastectomy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app