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: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

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

Comparison of Breast Reconstruction Strategies Using Exclusive Lipofilling or Prosthesis After Total Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: Satisfaction and Morbidity After More Than 2 Years. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Total mastectomy for breast cancer is an impactful procedure, and breast reconstruction plays a crucial role for women diagnosed with the disease.

Objectives: The objective of our study is to compare satisfaction, morbidity, and timelines of two breast reconstruction techniques after breast cancer: breast prosthesis and exclusive lipofilling.

Methods: This is a comparative, retrospective, unicentric study on patients who underwent total mastectomy between May 2014 and May 2020. Satisfaction is assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at least 2 years after the start of the reconstruction (4.8 (± 0.16) years in the implant group and 5.4 (± 0.12) years the lipofilling group, p value = 0.044). Morbidity is evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results: One hundred and one patients were included in the study (60 in the prosthesis group and 41 in the lipofilling group). The response rate to the questionnaire was 63.3% (38 patients) in the prosthesis group and 70.7% (29 patients) in the lipofilling group. The lipofilling technique appears to provide better satisfaction for the "sexual well-being" item of the BREAST-Q in multivariate analysis (65.75 +/-1.92 versus 54.87 +/-1.46, multivariate p-value = 0.03). Major complication (grade III, IV or V) rate was 20% in the prosthesis reconstruction group compared to 0% in the lipofilling group (multivariate p-value = 0.05). Lipofilling often requires longer reconstruction times, but reoperations are more frequent in prosthesis reconstruction, extending the reconstruction periods.

Conclusions: Our data should be confirmed by other studies to better guide the choice of reconstruction type.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaf174DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lipofilling group
16
breast reconstruction
12
total mastectomy
12
breast cancer
12
reconstruction
9
mastectomy breast
8
satisfaction morbidity
8
group
8
prosthesis group
8
group lipofilling
8

Similar Publications