shh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomies with Implant-Based Reconstructions Followed Long Term: A Consecutive Series of 185 Patients
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: World Journal of Surgery, ISSN 0364-2313, E-ISSN 1432-2323, Vol. 43, no 9, p. 2262-2270Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) is the most effective method to prevent breast cancer in genetically predisposed women and is often performed concomitantly with breast reconstruction. The reconstruction time varies and corrective surgeries are common.

METHODS: This study evaluated 185 consecutive cases of BRRM and immediate breast reconstruction with implants with regard to surgical outcome and resource consumption. With an 18-year observation period, it was possible to compare permanent expander implants (PEIs) with permanent fixed volume implants (PIs).

RESULTS: A minimum follow-up of 2 years for all participants but one was achieved. Seventy-five percent (n = 138) of the women received PEI and 25% (n = 47) PI. In a multivariate analysis including age, BMI (<25, ≥25), smoking (yes, no), implant type (PEI, PI), incision technique, operation time and specimen weight <350 g, ≥350 g), only BMI ≥25 was associated with an increased risk of an early complication (OR 7.1, 95% CI 2.44-20.4). As expected, there was a significant difference in median reconstruction time between PEI and PI (12.4 vs. 1.0 months, p < 0.001). The cumulative reoperation-free 2-year survival was significantly higher in the PI than in the PEI group (81% vs. 26%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Implant-based reconstruction remains a valid option after BRRM in high-risk women. Whenever possible (low BMI and small breast volume without severe ptosis), permanent fixed volume implants can be safely recommended and are resource saving in comparison with permanent expander implants.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 43, no 9, p. 2262-2270
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:shh:diva-3368DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-05037-4PubMedID: 31119358OAI: oai:DiVA.org:shh-3368DiVA, id: diva2:1323428
Available from: 2019-06-12 Created: 2019-06-12 Last updated: 2019-08-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Sophiahemmet University
In the same journal
World Journal of Surgery
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
v. 2.35.7
|