MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2466186770 · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000480018.05079.2a

Reply

2016· letter· en· W2466186770 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Frank Lista, Ryan E Austin, Yashoda Singh, Jamil Ahmad

Notice bibliographique

RevuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBreast reductionMammaplastyMedicineReduction (mathematics)ResectionSurgeryBreast tissueBreast cancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sir: We thank the authors for their comments on our updated technique and accompanying video in the article “Vertical Scar Reduction Mammaplasty.”1 In our experience, this technique has been effective in addressing both functional and aesthetic concerns of patients with symptomatic mammary hypertrophy. We believe that vertical scar reduction mammaplasty is an important technique for all plastic surgeons to be comfortable with when dealing with this patient population. However, it is important that we begin to dispel the perception that vertical scar breast reduction is a difficult procedure to learn and master—the learning curve is no longer than that of any other breast reduction technique. Where the “difficulty” in vertical scar breast reduction primarily lies is that the final shape of the breast on the operating room table is different than the final postoperative appearance. Once the surgeon is comfortable with this, vertical scar breast reduction is actually a simpler, safer, and more efficient approach to reduction mammaplasty.1 With regard to their question about marking the medial and lateral limbs of the vertical skin pattern, it is important to have the vertical pillars meet in the midline of the breast. This can be accomplished through medial and lateral displacement of the breast2 or by approximating the planned position of the medial and lateral pillars to ensure that they meet in the midline with a skin pinch.3 The width of the vertical resection is not as important as ensuring that the vertical pillars will meet in the midline, and it is important to err on the side of caution when marking the vertical limbs—avoid overresection, which can lead to poor inferior pole shape. Cases of breast asymmetry are more difficult with any breast reduction technique, not only the vertical scar pattern techniques. In these cases, it is up to the surgeon to determine whether there are differences in the volume or skin laxity of the breasts, and adjust the markings to account for these differences. With regard to their point about excess vertical scar length, we manage this by gathering the skin of the vertical scar with the four-point gathering box stitch technique.4 The absolute length of the scar itself is not as important as the breast shape. Lassus previously described measurements of the distance between the inferior border of the areola and the inframammary crease in aesthetically pleasing breasts that ranged from 4.5 to 10 cm,3 whereas other authors have shown good results in vertical reductions with distances of up to 12 cm.5 In addition, the length of the vertical scar does not increase, and actually may decrease, following vertical scar reduction mammaplasty.6 We believe that gathering of the vertical scar is important to shorten the vertical scar to within the “normal range” described by Lassus, instead of focusing on one particular number.3 Dog-ear formation at the inferior aspect of the vertical incision is managed prophylactically using multiple methods. As we describe in the marking of the inferior resection margin, the vertical limbs are brought together in the shape of a V instead of rounding them off as a U. The aforementioned skin gathering of the vertical limbs also helps to control dog-ear formation. Furthermore, subcutaneous resection at the level of the inframammary crease is an important part of our technique for management of inferior scar puckering/dog-ear formation. It is important to note that we have not found it necessary to perform any horizontal extension of the vertical scar, the so-called short inverted-T or “owl” incision, in our vertical scar reduction technique. Finally, to the point of limitations of the vertical scar technique in patients desiring a small postoperative breast size, this can be a difficult problem. However, in many cases, patients with larger breasts have a larger body habitus, and we therefore educate the patients about creating a postoperative breast size that is proportional to their body size and shape. We also encourage these patients to lose weight through diet and exercise before surgery if a smaller size is desired. However, in cases of extremely large breast size in a smaller patient, the vertical scar technique may not provide an adequate reduction. In these cases, an L-scar, short inverted-T, of full inverted-T resection pattern may be required. Our video is intended to simplify and demystify the vertical scar reduction mammaplasty technique, and we encourage all plastic surgeons to not only adopt this technique themselves but to educate their trainees in this technique to avoid making vertical scar reduction mammaplasty seem overly difficult or complex. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this communication. Frank Lista, M.D. The Plastic Surgery Clinic Mississauga, Ontario, and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department of Surgery University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada Ryan E. Austin, M.D. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department of Surgery University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada Yashoda Singh School of Medicine Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Dublin, Ireland Jamil Ahmad, M.D. The Plastic Surgery Clinic Mississauga, Ontario, and Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department of Surgery University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,276
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,232
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgeryMême sujetBreast Implant and ReconstructionTravaux en français237 207