4.4 Review

The effects of breast reduction on pulmonary functions: A systematic review

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.08.068

关键词

Breast reduction; Reduction mammaplasty; Pulmonary function; Lung function; Macromastia

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review evaluates the impact of breast reduction surgery on lung function and finds that most studies indicate improved respiratory parameters in women with macromastia. However, the clinical and functional significance of these improvements is still debated.
Breast reduction is one of the most commonly requested and performed plastic surgery procedures, and its psychological, esthetic, and analgesic benefits are well known. Sev-eral studies dealing with the effects of reduction mammoplasty on the physiology of respiration have been published in the past decades. This systematic review aims to assess whether bilat-eral breast reduction is associated with measurable improvement in lung function in women with macromastia. This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases were queried in search of clinical studies that investigated lung function in women undergoing breast reduction for macromastia and reported any type of parameter or outcome measure relevant to pulmonary function. The search yielded 394 articles of which 15 articles met our specific inclusion criteria. The primary outcome mea-sures of the studies and their respective results were tabulated, contrasted, and compared. The 15 studies included in this review cover the period from 1974 to 2018. According to most included studies, reduction mammaplasty produces a change of objective respiratory param-eters, such as spirometric tests or arterial blood gas (ABG) measurements; nevertheless, the clinical and functional relevance of the observed changes is debatable.(c) 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by El-sevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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