4.3 Article

Predictors affecting complications and aesthetic outcomes in autologous breast reconstruction with free muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps

期刊

MICROSURGERY
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 38-43

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/micr.30442

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Identification and understanding of predictors for complications and aesthetic outcomes in free muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flap are essential for successful breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to investigate predictors for complications and aesthetic outcomes in patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction with free MS-TRAM flaps. Patients and Methods Between March 2003 and September 2017, a total of 214 patients who underwent breast reconstruction with MS-TRAM flaps were included in this study. Mean age of the patients was 43.2 years (range, 28-61 years). Four outcome data, including operation time, hospital stay, aesthetic scores, and complications; and 12 patient data, including recipient vessel type, age, body mass index [BMI] > 25, smoking status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, contralateral breast surgery, history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, and endocrine disease were collected. Results Five and 52 patients experienced major complications, including partial flap loss, and minor complications, respectively. In stepwise multiple logistic analysis, risk factors for complications were BMI > 25 (P < 0.001), smoking status (P = 0.012), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (P = 0.002). BMI > 25 (P < 0.001), smoking status (P < 0.001), contralateral breast surgery (P < 0.001), and history of cardiac (P = 0.001) and endocrine disease (P = 0.003) were predictors for aesthetic outcome. Conclusion Predictors for complications and aesthetic outcomes determined in this study may facilitate microsurgeons engaged in the assessment of patients needing free MS-TRAM flaps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据