4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Chest wall resections and reconstruction: A 25-year experience

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 73, Issue 6, Pages 1720-1725

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03527-0

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Chest wall defects continue to present a complicated treatment scenario for thoracic and reconstructive surgeons. The purpose of this study is to report our 25-year experience with chest wall resections and reconstructions. Methods. A retrospective review of 200 patients who had chest wall resections from 1975 to 2000 was performed. Results. Patient demographics included tobacco abuse, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, alcohol abuse, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and human immunodeficiency virus. Surgical indications included lung cancer, breast cancer, chest wall tumors, and severe pectus deformities. Twenty-nine patients had radiation necrosis and 31 patients had lung or chest wall infections. The mean number of ribs resected was 4 +/- 2 ribs. Fifty-six patients underwent sternal resections. In addition 14 patients underwent forequarter amputations. Immediate closure was performed in 195 patients whereas delayed closure was performed in 5 patients. Primary repair without the use of reconstructive techniques was possible in 43 patients. Synthetic chest wall reconstruction was performed using Prolene mesh, Marlex mesh, methyl methacrylate sandwich, Vicryl mesh, and polytetrafluoroethylene. Flaps utilized for soft tissue coverage were free flap (17 patients) and pedicled flap (96 patients). Mean postoperative length of stay was 14 +/-14 days. Mean intensive care unit stay was 5 +/- 9 days. In-hospital and 30-day survival was 93%. Conclusions. Chest wall resection with reconstruction utilizing synthetic mesh or local muscle flaps can be performed as a safe, effective one-stage surgical procedure for a variety of major chest wall defects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available