A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

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

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 143

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 994
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3134
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The Value of a Co-surgeon in Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Using a co-surgeon model for microvascular breast reconstruction (MBR) could improve surgical efficiency by reducing surgical time and hospital stay compared to a single-surgeon model.
  • A comprehensive review included seven studies, showing that 51.77% of patients had MBR with a co-surgeon versus 48.23% with a single surgeon.
  • Although complication rates, such as infections and seromas, did not significantly decrease with a co-surgeon model, it was noted to enhance overall surgical effectiveness.

Article Abstract

Using a co-surgeon model has been suggested to improve perioperative outcomes and reduce the risk of complications. Therefore, we evaluated if a co-surgeon model compared with a single microsurgeon model could decrease the surgical time, length of stay, rate of complications, and healthcare-associated costs in adult patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction (MBR). A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies evaluating the perioperative outcomes and complications of MBR using a single-surgeon model and co-surgeon model were included. A random-effects model was fitted to the data. Seven retrospective comparative studies were included. Ultimately, 1411 patients (48.23%) underwent MBR using a single-surgeon model, representing 2339 flaps (48.42%). On the other hand, 1514 patients (51.77%) underwent MBR using a co-surgeon model, representing 2492 flaps (51.58%). The surgical time was significantly reduced using a co-surgeon model in all studies compared with a single-surgeon model. The length of stay was reduced using a co-surgeon model compared with a single-surgeon model in all but one study. The log odds ratio (log-OR) of recipient site infection (log-OR = -0.227; = 0.6509), wound disruption (log-OR = -0.012; = 0.9735), hematoma (log-OR = 0.061; = 0.8683), and seroma (log-OR = -0.742; = 0.1106) did not significantly decrease with the incorporation of a co-surgeon compared with a single-surgeon model. Incorporating a co-surgeon model for MBR has minimal impact on the rates of surgical site complications compared with a single-surgeon model. However, a co-surgeon optimized efficacy and reduced the surgical time and length of stay.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10843485PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005624DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

co-surgeon model
28
single-surgeon model
24
compared single-surgeon
16
model
15
surgical time
12
length stay
12
co-surgeon
10
microvascular breast
8
breast reconstruction
8
perioperative outcomes
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!