Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: For patients undergoing prosthetic breast reconstruction whose device was removed because of infection or exposure, there is no published information examining long-term outcomes. Despite initial failure, many patients want to pursue breast reconstruction.
Methods: A retrospective review was performed of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction failures during a 5-year period.
Results: A total of 26 patients (29 breasts) were identified who failed primary prosthetic 2-stage reconstruction. On average, the device was removed 262 days from the initial expander placement. Of these breasts, 19 were removed for infection, 7 for exposure, and 3 for a combination of both. Of these 29 failures, secondary reconstruction was attempted in 20 (69%). Among secondary reconstructions, 13 were with a device and 7 with autologous tissue. Of the 13 (92.3%) secondary device reconstructions, 12 were successful.Those in whom secondary reconstruction was attempted were younger at initial reconstruction (48 vs 57 years; P = 0.038), had lower body mass indexes (BMIs) (26.0 vs 29.4; P = 0.27), and smaller breasts (650 vs 979 g; P = 0.23) than those who did not attempt secondary reconstruction.Of the nipple-sparing mastectomy patients, 100% underwent secondary reconstruction, whereas only 61% of skin-sparing mastectomy patients underwent secondary reconstruction (P = 0.14).For patients undergoing secondary reconstruction, those receiving a second device reconstruction had lower BMIs (24.7 vs 28.5; P = 0.18) and smaller breasts (489 vs 946 g; P = 0.08) than those with autologous reconstructions; 15% of secondary implant reconstructions underwent irradiation versus 43% of the secondary autologous reconstructions (P = 0.29).
Conclusions: After failed prosthetic breast reconstruction, a second attempt with an implant in properly selected patients has a high success rate (92.3%).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31827565d1 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!