| 1. |
- Brorson, Fredrik, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient reported outcome and quality of life after delayed breast reconstruction - An RCT comparing different reconstructive methods in radiated and non-radiated patients
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Clinical Breast Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 1526-8209 .- 1938-0666. ; 22:8, s. 753-761
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is one of the core outcomes for breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the method of delayed breast reconstruction affects long-term HRQoL. Methods Participants were divided into 2 arms depending on previous radiotherapy, and subsequently randomized between 2 methods of breast reconstruction: a latissimus dorsi flap or a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap in the radiated arm and a thoracodorsal flap and implant or an expander in the non-radiated arm. Validated HRQoL instruments were used: BREAST-Q to evaluate breast specific HRQoL and satisfaction, RAND-36 and EQ-5D to evaluate generic HRQoL, and BDI-21 to measure symptoms of depression and anxiety. Results During the recruitment period (2009-2015), 233 patients were randomized. After opt-outs and exclusions, the remaining 107 participants comprise the study sample. Postoperative HrQoL was measured on average 7to 8years post-operatively. Response rates varied between 60 and 82 per cent. The BREAST-Q scores were higher after the reconstruction than before for the great majority of domains in both arms; albeit statistically significant only between the 2 methods for physical well-being chest in the radiated arm. Most participants in both arms had minimal or mild depression both before and after the operation. Conclusion No distinct differences in long-term HrQoL could be seen for different methods There was a clear improvement in HrQoL compared to pre-reconstruction in all groups, but the effect of specific reconstructive methods on scores could not be reliably demonstrated.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hansson, Emma, 1981, et al.
(författare)
-
A systematic review of direct preference measurements in health states treated with plastic surgery
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery. - : Taylor and Francis Ltd.. - 2000-656X .- 2000-6764. ; 56:3, s. 180-190
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- One way to compare health care needs and outcomes on common scales is by estimating the strength of preferences or willingness-to-pay (WTP). The aim of this study was to review directly measured preference values and WTP estimates for health states treated by plastic surgery. The included articles had to meet the criteria defined in the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). Relevant databases were searched using predetermined strings. Data were extracted in a standardised manner. Included studies were appraised according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for rating the importance of outcomes. In total, 213 abstracts were retrieved. Of these, 179 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded, leaving 34 studies in the review. The risk of bias was considered moderate in four studies and serious in the rest. The overall certainty of evidence for directly measured preference values and WTP estimates for health states treated by plastic surgery is low (Grade ƟƟОО). The lowest preference scores were generally elicited for facial defects/anomalies and the highest for excess skin after massive weight loss. Scientific knowledge about preferences and the resulting health gains might play an essential role in deciding which procedures should be considered for public funding or rather rationed within the system. Better quality studies are required to allow for such applications.
|
|
| 3. |
- Moellhoff, Nicholas, et al.
(författare)
-
ESPRAS Survey on Continuing Education in Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery in Europe. : ESPRAS Umfrage zur Weiterbildung in der Plastischen Rekonstruktiven und Ästhetischen Chirurgie in Europa.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V.... - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1439-3980. ; 54:4, s. 365-373
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Specialty training in plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery is a prerequisite for safe and effective provision of care. The aim of this study was to assess and portray similarities and differences in the continuing education and specialization in plastic surgery in Europe.A detailed questionnaire was designed and distributed utilizing an online survey administration software. Questions addressed core items regarding continuing education and specialization in plastic surgery in Europe. Participants were addressed directly via the European Leadership Forum (ELF) of the European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS). All participants had detailed knowledge of the organization and management of plastic surgical training in their respective country.The survey was completed by 29 participants from 23 European countries. During specialization, plastic surgeons in Europe are trained in advanced tissue transfer and repair and aesthetic principles in all parts of the human body and within several subspecialties. Moreover, rotations in intensive as well as emergency care are compulsory in most European countries. Board certification is only provided for surgeons who have had multiple years of training regulated by a national board, who provide evidence of individually performed operative procedures in several anatomical regions and subspecialties, and who pass a final oral and/or written examination.Board certified plastic surgeons meet the highest degree of qualification, are trained in all parts of the body and in the management of complications. The standard of continuing education and qualification of European plastic surgeons is high, providing an excellent level of plastic surgical care throughout Europe.Die Facharzt-Weiterbildung für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie ist eine Grundvoraussetzung für sichere und effektive Patientenversorgung. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war die Darstellung von Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in der Weiterbildung für Plastische Chirurgie innerhalb von Europa.Ein internetbasierter Fragebogen wurde mit Hilfe eines kostenlosen Formularerstellungstools erstellt und verteilt. Die Fragen betrafen Kernpunkte der Weiterbildung für Plastische Chirurgie in Europa. Die Teilnehmer wurden direkt über das European Leadership Forum (ELF) der European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS) kontaktiert. Alle Teilnehmer hatten weitreichende Kenntnisse über die Organisation und Struktur der plastisch-chirurgischen Weiterbildung in ihrem jeweiligen Land.29 Teilnehmer*innen aus 23 europäischen Ländern nahmen an der Umfrage teil. Die Weiterbildung für Plastische Chirurgie beinhaltet grundlegende Prinzipien und Techniken zur Wiederherstellung von Form und Funktion innerhalb der verschiedenen Säulen der Plastischen Chirurgie, sowie in allen Körperregionen. In den meisten europäischen Ländern ist eine Rotation in der Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin und die Behandlung kritisch kranker Patienten obligatorisch. Voraussetzung für die Facharztbezeichnung ist die mehrjährige, national organisierte Weiterbildung, der Nachweis einer festgelegten Anzahl selbstständig durchgeführter Operationen, sowie die mündliche und/oder schriftliche Abschlussprüfung.Fachärzte für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie sind hochqualifiziert und auch im Umgang mit Komplikationen geschult. Der Standard der Weiterbildung der europäischen Plastischen Chirurgen ist hoch, so dass innerhalb Europas eine hohe Qualität plastisch-chirurgischer Versorgung gewährleistet ist.
|
|
| 4. |
- Paganini, Anna, 1979, et al.
(författare)
-
Are patients most satisfied with a synthetic or a biological mesh in dual-plane immediate breast reconstruction after 5 years? A randomized controlled trial comparing the two meshes in the same patient
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 1748-6815. ; 75:11, s. 4133-4143
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Biological or synthetic meshes are commonly used in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) after IBR with a synthetic mesh and a biological mesh, in a single-blinded randomized controlled trial, using the compared materials in the same patient, thereby eliminating patient-related confounders. Twenty-four patients were recruited, and all patients had a prophylactic bilateral mastectomy and a dual-plane reconstruction using anatomical breast implants. The patients’ two breasts were randomized preoperatively to a biological or a synthetic mesh, using a simple approach with a parallel design. PROMs were measured with BREAST-Q. Twenty-one patients answered (88%). Most participants were equally satisfied/dissatisfied with the synthetic and the biological mesh sides regarding size of bra, softness, feel to touch, natural part of body, appearance compared with preoperatively, and palpable wrinkles, and about half of the patients regarding shape of bra, natural appearance, and visible wrinkles. The frequency of capsular contracture rate was zero in both groups at 5 years. One mesh type was not clearly superior to the other regarding PROMs, but biological and synthetic meshes seem to give rise to different types of reconstructed breasts, and more studies are needed regarding whether knowledge about the effects of different meshes can be used to tailor breast reconstructions to individual patients’ wishes. The rate of complications and corrections in the biological mesh breasts was higher, and this must be considered when the type of mesh is chosen. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier NCT02985073 © 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
