Abstract: Effect of Absorbable Skin Stapler in Autologous Breast Reconstruction Patients: Approach Through Economic and Cosmesis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: In abdominal based autologous breast reconstructions, abdominal closure is a time-consuming procedure. The time cost of the skin closure process is difficult to reduce. However, skin suture using absorbable subcuticular staples, which allow for increased rapid closure can provide equivalent healing capacity in various situations of incision closure.1 The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic efficacy and cosmetic satisfaction of wound closure with an absorbable subcuticular stapling system, and compare these results obtained with conventional dermal sutures in breast reconstruction patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The A total 94 patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction were included the study. Of these, INSORB® was used in 64 patients and we compared 30 patient’s clinical data as a conventional suture group. We provided a controlled surgical environment for evaluate effect of choice of closure material. For exclude the possibility of surgical procedure variety, we divide into free flap and pedicle flap groups and each group has stapler and control groups. For analysis of cost-effectivenss we applied endotracheal anesthesia expenses, and objective assessment by resident and questionnaire by patient was made for scar evaluation.2 RESULTS: Using paired t test, statistical analysis was made. An pedicle flap group represents 387.2hrs (stapler), 480.5hrs(control) (t-value -2.031, p-value 0.043) and free flap group represents 442.0hrs(stapler), 514.8hrs(control) (t-value -2.037, p-value 0.025) as average anesthesia time. A gap of time reduction is 93.3hrs in pedicle flap group and 72.8hrs in free flap group for absorbable stapler used groups. These reduce time of total general anesthesia in absorbable groups, which is equivalent to a 135.67$ in pedicle group and 128.35$ in free flap group. In regards to the expenses of INSORB®, only the group that used 1 stapler is significant. The complication rate, duration of healing period and the patient’s satisfaction of the scar did not differ between each group. CONCLUSION: An absorbable staples are effective materials that allow cost-effective closure when used appropriately. While dealing with cutting-edge technology,3,4 we need to consider patients benefits that would get overwhelming his expenses. In that point, only 1 stapler used in abdominal closure is effective not to be two used. And also we could find this is no way inferior to conventional suture. The availability of time reduction with equivalent cosmetic results is appealing aspects for applying reconstruction operation. DISCLOSURE/FINANCIAL SUPPORT:Nothing to declare. REFERENCES: 1. Gatt D, Quick CR, Owen-Smith MS. Staples for wound closure: a controlled trial. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1985;67:318–20. 2. Pauline T. Truong, Standardized Assessment of Breast Cancer Surgical Scars Integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Patients’ Perspectives, PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2005; 116:1291 3. Bastian PJ, Haferkamp A, Albers P, Müller SC. A new form of noninvasive wound closure with a surgical zipper. J Urol 2003;169:1785–6. 4. Luck RP, Flood R, Eyal D, Saludades J, Hayes C, Gaughan J. Cosmetic outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in pediatric facial lacerations. Pediatr Emerg Care 2008;24:137–42.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».