切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (03) : 262 -266. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2023.03.009

论著

不同方案乳房重建术患者报告结局及并发症分析
范拥国1, 吕勇刚2, 杨晓民1, 王虎霞1, 陈楠1, 贺赛1, 侯艳妮1, 赵静1, 张静远1, 韩丕华1,()   
  1. 1. 710061 西安,陕西省肿瘤医院乳腺肿瘤科
    2. 710021 西安,西安市第三医院
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-05 出版日期:2023-06-26
  • 通信作者: 韩丕华

Analysis of outcomes and complications reported by patients undergoing breast reconstruction with different protocols

Yongguo Fan1, Yonggang Lyu2, Xiaomin Yang1, Huxia Wang1, Nan Chen1, Sai He1, Yanni Hou1, Jing Zhao1, Jingyuan Zhang1, Pihua Han1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Breast Oncology,Shaanxi Provincal Cancer Hospital,Xi’an 710061,China
    2. Xi’an Third Hospital,Xi’an Shaanxi Province 710021,China
  • Received:2022-09-05 Published:2023-06-26
  • Corresponding author: Pihua Han
  • Supported by:
    Second Class Project of Health Research Talents of Xi’an(J201902045)
引用本文:

范拥国, 吕勇刚, 杨晓民, 王虎霞, 陈楠, 贺赛, 侯艳妮, 赵静, 张静远, 韩丕华. 不同方案乳房重建术患者报告结局及并发症分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 262-266.

Yongguo Fan, Yonggang Lyu, Xiaomin Yang, Huxia Wang, Nan Chen, Sai He, Yanni Hou, Jing Zhao, Jingyuan Zhang, Pihua Han. Analysis of outcomes and complications reported by patients undergoing breast reconstruction with different protocols[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(03): 262-266.

目的

分析一步法和二步法乳房重建手术对患者报告结局及并发症的影响。

方法

选取2017年3月至2022年3月98例乳房全切术后即刻乳房重建患者的临床资料,根据重建方式不同分为两组,一步法组50例行即刻假体植入乳房重建手术,二步法组48例行即刻扩张器-延迟假体植入乳房重建手术。SPSS 21.0软件完成数据分析,计数资料比较行χ2检验或Fisher精确检验;计量资料用(

xˉ
±s)表示,组间比较行t检验;采用线性混合效应回归模型对术后并发症和患者报告结局进行多因素回归分析。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

一步法组血清肿、切口愈合不良发生率高于二步法组,包膜挛缩发生率低于二步法组(P<0.05);一步法组Clavien-Dindo分级Ⅲ级例数多于二步法组(P<0.05);一步法组患者术后社会心理健康、乳房满意度及手术结果满意度等水平均低于二步法组(P<0.05)。线性混合效应回归模型分析结果显示:切口愈合不良与手术方法和使用补片有关(P=0.043、0.033);包膜挛缩及血清肿的发生分别与放疗和补片的使用有关(P=0.041、0.036);患者社会心理健康、乳房满意度与手术方法有关(P=0.024、0.001);手术结果满意度与术后放疗和淋巴结状态有关(P=0.017、0.039)。

结论

相比一步法乳房重建,二步法可降低切口愈合不良的发生比,并发症分级低,在提高患者术后社会心理满意度和乳房满意度方面更具优势。

Objective

To analyze the effects of one-and two-step breast reconstruction on patient reported outcomes and complications.

Methods

A total of 98 patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction after total mastectomy from March 2017 to March 2022 were selected and divided into two groups according to different reconstruction methods:the one-step group received 50 cases of immediate prosthesis implantation reconstruction surgery,and the two-step group received 48 cases of immediate dilator-delayed prosthesis implantation reconstruction surgery. SPSS 21.0 software was used to analyze the data,and the count data were compared by line χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Measurement data were represented by(

xˉ
±s),and t test was performed for comparison between groups. Multivariate regression analysis of postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes was performed using linear mixed effects regression model. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The incidence of seroma and poor wound healing in one-step group was higher than that in two-step group,and the incidence of capsular contracture was lower than that in two-step group(P<0.05). The number of Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅲ cases in one-step group was higher than that in two-step group(P<0.05). The levels of postoperative social mental health,breast satisfaction and surgical outcome satisfaction in one-step group were lower than those in two-step group(P<0.05). The results of linear mixed effects regression model showed that the poor wound healing was related to the surgical method and the use of mesh(P=0.043,0.033). Capsular contracture and seroma were related to radiotherapy and mesh use(P=0.041,0.036). Social psychological health and breast satisfaction were correlated with surgical methods(P=0.024,0.001). The satisfaction of surgical outcome was related to postoperative radiotherapy and lymph node status(P=0.017,0.039).

Conclusions

Compared with one-step breast reconstruction,two-step method can reduce the incidence of poor incision healing,lower complication grade,and has more advantages in improving patients' postoperative social psychological satisfaction and breast satisfaction.

表1 98例乳腺癌乳房全切术不同乳房重建术式两组患者一般资料比较[(
xˉ
±s),例]
表2 98例乳腺癌乳房全切术不同乳房重建术式两组患者术后并发症比较(例)
表3 98例乳腺癌乳房全切术不同乳房重建术式两组患者术后报告结局比较(
xˉ
±s)
表4 98例乳腺癌乳房全切术患者术后并发症的混合效应回归分析
表5 98例乳腺癌乳房全切术患者报告结局的混合效应回归分析
[1]
汤志英,万芳. 乳腺癌发病流行病学影响因素调查及疗效分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健202136(10):2349-2353.
[2]
肖汉,唐成欣,车艾兰. 早期乳腺癌微创治疗的新进展[J]. 医学综述202228(05):910-914.
[3]
Momeni AGiunta RE. Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer[J]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir202254(4):268.
[4]
Lee CCPerng CKMa H,et al. Long-Term Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction[J]. Ann Plast Surg202288(1s Suppl 1):S78-S84.
[5]
Salzberg CA. Focus on technique:one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg2012130(5 Suppl 2):95S-103S.
[6]
Nahabedian MYJacobson SR. Two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction[J]. Gland Surg20198(1):43-52.
[7]
Har-Shai LOfek SEBrandstetter A,et al. Quality of Patient-Reported Outcome Studies Utilizing the BREAST-Q:A Systematic Review[J]. Aesthet Surg J202141(11):NP1448-NP1458.
[8]
刘峥,杨基鹏,任思媛,等. 保留乳头的乳腺癌切除术在早期乳腺癌患者中临床效果研究[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版),202014(03):273-276.
[9]
宋海涛,马斌,杨乐,等. 保留乳头乳晕复合体乳房切除术中三种乳房重建术的临床效果对比[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版),202115(06):613-616.
[10]
Volders JHNegenborn VLSpronk PE,et al. Breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy-a systematic review on surgical outcomes[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat2018168(1):1-12.
[11]
李宇翔,丰锦春,朱丽萍,等. 植入物乳房重建一步法和二步法临床对比研究[J]. 现代肿瘤医学202028(10):1668-1673.
[12]
Toh UTakenaka MIwakuma N,et al. Clinical outcomes of patients after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction based on the expander/implant technique[J]. Surg Today202151(6):862-871.
[13]
苏效添,曾媛媛. 乳腺癌术后不同方法乳房重建的安全性研究进展[J]. 医学综述202228(06):1163-1167.
[14]
李正东,成小林,武羿,等. 女性乳腺癌全乳切除术后乳房假体一步法及两步法重建效果比较[J]. 同济大学学报(医学版)202041(06):754-759.
[15]
Shumway DAMomoh AOSabel MS,et al. Integration of Breast Reconstruction and Postmastectomy Radiotherapy[J]. J Clin Oncol202038(20):2329-2340.
[16]
Toyserkani NMJørgensen MGTabatabaeifar S,et al. Autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction:A systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes[J]. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg202073(2):278-285.
[1] 马桥桥, 张传开, 郭开今, 蒋涛, 王子豪, 刘勇, 郝亮. 可降解止血粉减少初次全膝关节置换术失血量的研究[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 585-589.
[2] 曾敬, 吴冬冬, 邵明, 范震波, 王治国, 刘培谊, 兰海峰. 高龄髋部骨折患者不同手术时机的围手术期疗效评估[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 445-449.
[3] 赵飞鸿, 陈颖杰, 林静芳, 郑晓春, 廖燕凌. 超声引导下周围神经阻滞对髋膝关节置换术后恢复的影响[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 457-468.
[4] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[5] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[6] 李华志, 曹广, 刘殿刚, 张雅静. 不同入路下行肝切除术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 52-55.
[7] 常小伟, 蔡瑜, 赵志勇, 张伟. 高强度聚焦超声消融术联合肝动脉化疗栓塞术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的效果及安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 56-59.
[8] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[9] 康婵娟, 张海涛, 翟静洁. 胰管支架置入术治疗急性胆源性胰腺炎的效果及对患者肝功能、炎症因子水平的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 667-670.
[10] 付成旺, 杨大刚, 王榕, 李福堂. 营养与炎症指标在可切除胰腺癌中的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 704-708.
[11] 许杰, 李亚俊, 冯义文. SOX新辅助化疗后腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术与常规根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 647-650.
[12] 曾繁利, 齐秩凯, 杨贺庆. 两种经Glisson蒂鞘解剖路径肝切除术治疗原发性肝癌的肿瘤学疗效及风险比对[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 525-527.
[13] 王维花, 王楠, 乔庆, 罗红. 完全腹腔镜右半结肠癌切除术两种腔内消化道重建方案对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 574-577.
[14] 罗柳平, 吴萌萌, 陈欣磊, 林科灿. 胰腺全系膜切除在胰头癌根治术中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 651-656.
[15] 韩青雷, 丛赟, 李佳隆, 邵英梅. 术前减黄方式对壶腹周围癌胰十二指肠切除术后并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 665-669.
阅读次数
全文


摘要