ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Technical Refinements for Reducing Reoperations in Single-Stage Augmentation Mastopexy: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe goals of mastopexy differ significantly from those of augmentation mammoplasty. Mastopexy is designed to lift and reshape the breasts, while augmentation mammoplasty is designed to increase the volume of the breasts. This conflict causes that one-stage augmentation mastopexies showed a revision rate from 8.7 to 23.2%. The aim of our study is to present some technical refinements for reducing the risk of implant exposure and reoperation.
methodsWe designed a retrospective matched cohort study, including 216 consecutive patients, undergone augmentation mastopexy between January 2013 and December 2022. We divided them in two groups: Group A undergone an inverted-T superomedial pedicled augmentation mastopexy and Group B undergone our inverted-T modified augmentation mastopexy. The groups were matched for clinical and surgical variables, with the surgical technique the only difference between the two.
resultsComplications were registered in ten patients (9.3%) in Group A (two wound breakdowns at T with implant exposure and eight wound dehiscences), six of which required surgical revision. In contrast, only three patients (2.8%) in Group B reported a complication, which was wound dehiscence without implant exposure in all cases. None of the dehiscence required surgical revision. The difference between complication and revision rates was statistically significant.
conclusionsSeparating the implant and the mastopexy dissection planes reduces the implant exposure and the reoperation rate in one-stage augmentation mastopexy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors https://link.springer.com/journal/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.