Comparing the clinical outcomes of endoscope-assisted and direct prosthetic augmentation mammaplasty through an inframammary fold incision
10.3760/cma.j.cn114453-20231029-00158
- VernacularTitle:内窥镜辅助与直视下经乳房下皱襞切口假体隆乳术临床效果对比
- Author:
Mei ZHANG
1
;
Hao WANG
;
Defa CHEN
;
Baohua PAN
Author Information
1. 重庆华美整形外科医院整形外科，重庆 400015
- Keywords:
Mammaplasty;
Prostheses and implants;
Endoscope;
Inframammary fold incision
- From:
Chinese Journal of Plastic Surgery
2024;40(5):499-506
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical effects of endoscope-assisted and direct prosthetic augmentation mammaplasty through inframammary fold incisions.Methods:The clinical data of patients who underwent prosthetic augmentation mammaplasty through inframammary fold incisions in Chongqing Huamei Plastic Surgery Hospital from June 2021 to October 2022 were collected. At the same time, the clinical data of patients who underwent the operation under direct vision from June 2015 to May 2021 were collected as control group. The operation time, postoperative drainage tube indwelling time, length of hospital stay and postoperative drainage volume within 1-3 days were recorded in the two groups, and the incision healing, breast morphology and complications were collected. The data were processed by SPSS 26.0 software, which accorded with the measurement data of normal distribution with Mean ± SD, and t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. The data were presented as frequency and (or) percentage, and Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison between the two groups. When P < 0.05, the difference was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 169 female patients aged 21-48 years old were enrolled, including 71 patients in the endoscope-assisted group and 98 patients in the direct group. There was no significant difference in age, body mass index, prosthesis volume and postoperative follow-up time between the two groups ( P > 0.05). The operation process of the two groups was smooth, and the incisions healed by first intention after the operation. The operation time in the endoscope-assisted group was (123.5±13.5) min, which was slightly longer than that in the direct group [(111.5±8.1) min] ( t=7.20, P<0.001), and the postoperative drainage tube indwelling time[(2.6 ±0.7) d)] was significantly shorter than that in the direct group [(4.2±1.0) d] ( t=-11.58, P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay in the endoscope-assisted group [(2.8±0.8) d] was significantly shorter than that in the direct group [(4.6±1.3) d] ( t=-10.33, P < 0.001). The total amount of bilateral drainage in the endoscope-assisted group was (151.0±30.1) ml on the 1st to 3rd day after the operation, which was significantly lower than that in the direct group[(265.0±48.1) ml ] ( t=-17.62, P < 0.001). During the follow-up for one year, the breast shape and hand feeling of the two groups were good, and there was no infection, prosthesis rupture, displacement or exposure. The patients were satisfied with the results of the operation. The rates of capsular contracture, nipple-areola hypoesthesia and scar hyperplasia in the endoscope-assisted group were 0.7% (1/138), 0.7% (1/138) and 0 (0/138), respectively, which were lower than those in the direct group [2.7%(5/188), 3.7%(7/188) and 2.7%(5/188)], respectively, but the differences were not statistically significant ( P > 0.05). Conclusion:Both endoscope-assisted and direct prosthetic augmentation mammaplasty through an inframammary fold incision can achieve satisfactory results. The operation time of endoscope-assisted augmentation mammaplasty is slightly longer than that under direct vision, but the surgical trauma of that is less, the postoperative drainage tube indwelling time and length of hospital stay are shortened, and the amount of bleeding in the operation area is reduced.
