AI Article Synopsis

  • Autoaugmentation techniques in oncoplastic reductions help address larger defects and assist women with smaller breasts, potentially improving surgical outcomes compared to traditional methods.
  • A study reviewed data from women who underwent these procedures and found that those using autoaugmentation had smaller biopsy weights, indicating more effective defect management.
  • Despite different techniques, overall complication rates remained similar across groups, suggesting that autoaugmentation is a safe option that can expand the use of breast conservation therapy without increasing risks.

Article Abstract

Background: Autoaugmentation techniques have been applied to oncoplastic reductions to assist with filling larger, more remote defects, and to women with smaller breasts. The purpose of this report is to describe the use of autoaugmentation techniques in oncoplastic reduction and compare the results with those of traditional oncoplastic reduction.

Methods: The authors queried a prospectively maintained database of all women who underwent partial mastectomy and oncoplastic reduction between 1994 and October of 2015. The autoaugmentation techniques were defined as (1) extended primary nipple autoaugmentation pedicle, and (2) primary nipple pedicle and secondary autoaugmentation pedicle. Comparisons were made to a control oncoplastic group.

Results: There were a total of 333 patients, 222 patients (67.7 percent) without autoaugmentation and 111 patients (33 percent) with autoaugmentation (51 patients with an extended autoaugmentation pedicle, and 60 patients with a secondary autoaugmentation pedicle). Biopsy weight was smallest in the extended pedicle group (136 g) and largest in the regular oncoplastic group (235 g; p = 0.017). Superomedial was the most common extended pedicle, and lateral was the most common location. Inferolateral was the most common secondary pedicle for lateral and upper outer defects. There were no significant differences in the overall complication rate: 15.5 percent in the regular oncoplastic group, 19.6 percent in the extended pedicle group, and 20 percent in the secondary pedicle group.

Conclusions: Autoaugmentation techniques have evolved to manage complex defects not amenable to standard oncoplastic reduction methods. They are often required for lateral defects, especially in smaller breasts. Autoaugmentation can be performed safely without an increased risk of complications, broadening the indications for breast conservation therapy.

Clinical Question/level Of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004009DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

autoaugmentation techniques
20
autoaugmentation pedicle
16
oncoplastic reduction
12
extended pedicle
12
autoaugmentation
11
pedicle
10
oncoplastic
9
techniques oncoplastic
8
smaller breasts
8
primary nipple
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!