Outcomes and quality of life in immediate one‐stage versus two‐stage breast reconstructions without an acellular dermal matrix: 17‐ years of experience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora O.F. Dimovska ◽  
Courtney Chen ◽  
Hsu‐Huan Chou ◽  
Yi‐Ling Lin ◽  
Ming‐Huei Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Years Of Experience ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Acellular Dermal

scholarly journals One-stage and two-stage breast reconstruction have no meaningful difference in patient quality of life

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amer Mansoor
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Randomised Controlled

A clinical decision report appraising Negenborn VL, Young-Afat DA, Dikmans REG, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncology. 2018;19(9):1205-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30378-4.

scholarly journals One-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty - a randomized multicenter clinical trial study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Lindberg-Larsen ◽  
◽  
Anders Odgaard ◽  
Charlotte Fredborg ◽  
Henrik Morville Schrøder
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
One Stage

Abstract Background A two-stage prosthesis exchange procedure has been the gold standard in surgical treatment of the chronically infected knee arthroplasty so far. This includes 2 surgeries/hospitalizations and an interim period of 2–3 months between surgeries with impaired health, functional status and quality of life of the patients. A one-stage exchange procedure holds many obvious advantages compared to the two-stage approach, but outcomes of a one-stage versus two-stage procedures have never been investigated in a randomized clinical trial. The purpose of this study is primarily to investigate time-adjusted differences in functional status of patients after one-stage versus two-stage revision. Secondary, to report time-adjusted differences in quality of life, complications (including re-revisions due to infection) and mortality. Methods This study is a pragmatic, multi-center, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing one-stage versus two-stage revision of the infected knee arthroplasty. Seven Danish hospitals are currently participating in the study, but additional hospitals can enter the study if adhering to protocol. Ninety-six patients will be included prospectively. Follow-up will be with PROM-questionnaires and clinical controls up to 10 years. The patients who are not able to participate in the randomized trial are followed in a parallel cohort study. PROM’s Oxford Knee Score and EQ5D + EQ5D VAS questionnaires are completed preoperatively and sent out to the study participants at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months as well as 5 and 10 years postoperatively. In addition a tailor made cost questionnaire on the non-treating hospital resource use, community health and social service use, travel costs, time off work and informal care are sent out. Discussion If one of the two treatment alternatives is found superior in both domains of quality of life (both knee-specific and generic) and health economics, that treatment should be promoted. Other outcomes will open informed discussions about treatment strategies for periprosthetic knee infections. Trial registration The randomized trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT03435679, initial release date January 31, 2018 and the cohort study is registered with ID NCT04427943, submitted January 8, 2020 and posted June 11, 2020.

scholarly journals Comparison of one-stage direct-to-implant with acellular dermal matrix and two-stage immediate implant-based breast reconstruction—a cohort study

Gland Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-218
Author(s):  
Mette Eline Brunbjerg ◽  
Thomas Bo Jensen ◽  
Jens Overgaard ◽  
Peer Christiansen ◽  
Tine Engberg Damsgaard
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Immediate Implant ◽  
Acellular Dermal

scholarly journals Pre-pectoral one-stage breast reconstruction with anterior biological acellular dermal matrix coverage

Gland Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 1002-1009
Author(s):  
Ayesha Khan ◽  
Marios-Konstantinos Tasoulis ◽  
Victoria Teoh ◽  
Aleksandra Tanska ◽  
Ruth Edmonds ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Acellular Dermal

Comparing Outcomes of Wise-Pattern, Two-Stage Breast Reduction-Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix

2021 ◽  
Vol 148 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-521
Author(s):  
Ashraf A. Patel ◽  
Hana Kayaleh ◽  
Luke A. Sala ◽  
Dylan J. Peterson ◽  
Prashant K. Upadhyaya
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reduction ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
Acellular Dermal ◽  
Wise Pattern

scholarly journals Prepectoral Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix

2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (2) ◽  
pp. 263e-272e ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar J. Manrique ◽  
Tony Chieh-Ting Huang ◽  
Jorys Martinez-Jorge ◽  
Pedro Ciudad ◽  
Antonio J. Forte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
Acellular Dermal
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document