A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Secondary Revision after Breast Reconstruction with Free Abdominal Perforator Flap: Flap Liposuction and Inframammary Fold Reconstruction. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: In breast reconstruction using the abdominal perforator flap, if the flap capacity is too large, secondary revision procedures can be performed to reduce flap volume and reconstruct the inframammary fold (IMF). We examined the various revision methods and cosmetic results.

Methods: This study included 28 patients who underwent secondary revision among 216 patients who had breast reconstruction using the abdominal perforator flap between April 2012 and March 2019. The revision method, removal ability, and the inferior breast point (IBP) were analyzed using medical records.

Results: Revision methods included incision resection in 4 cases, liposuction (LS) in 22 cases, LS and simultaneous IMF reconstruction in 2 cases, and post-LS IMF reconstruction in 1 case. The average LS amount was 317 mL (range, 100 --700 mL). In 22 patients who underwent LS, the difference in preoperative IBP was 1 cm or more in 19 (86.4%) cases and 1 cm or less in 3 (13.6%) cases. The difference in postoperative IBP was 1 cm or more in 12 (54.5%) cases and 1 cm or less in 10 (45.5%) cases. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that the cutoff LS amount for a postoperative IBP difference of 1 cm or less was 375 mL.

Conclusions: The IBP was increased due to the decrease in flap volume. Revisions were completed with no difference in the LS-only IBP, especially when the LS amount was less than 375 mL. If the removal of 375 mL or more is necessary, removal or reformation of the IMF can be considered. These findings can potentially guide the planning of surgical procedures.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11620721PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006336DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

secondary revision
12
breast reconstruction
12
abdominal perforator
12
perforator flap
12
flap flap
8
inframammary fold
8
reconstruction abdominal
8
flap volume
8
revision methods
8
patients underwent
8

Similar Publications