首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>In Vivo >A Head to Head Comparison Between SurgiMend® – Fetal Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix and Tutomesh® – A Bovine Pericardium Collagen Membrane in Breast Reconstruction in 45 Cases
【2h】

A Head to Head Comparison Between SurgiMend® – Fetal Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix and Tutomesh® – A Bovine Pericardium Collagen Membrane in Breast Reconstruction in 45 Cases

机译:SurgiMend®–胎牛脱细胞真皮基质和Tutomesh®–牛心包胶原膜在乳房重建中的对比研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background/Aim: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 3,200 ADM reconstructions. Head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend® and Tutomesh® are not yet reported. These are the first comparative clinical data reported on the use of Tutomesh® in breast reconstruction. Postoperative complication rates and costs for these devices were evaluated. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a 2-year experience with both SurgiMend® - fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix and Tutomesh® - a bovine pericardium collagen membrane in breast reconstruction in 45 cases from 2014-2015. Results: Forty-five patients received a total of 45 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend® (18 cases; 40%) or Tutomesh® (27 cases; 60%). Gross complication rates were 27.8% for SurgiMend® and 37.0% for Tutomesh® including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, red breast syndrome and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery did not differ significantly in patients treated with SurgiMend® (0 cases, 0%) compared to Tutomesh® (1 case, 3.7%). Conclusion: This retrospective analysis shows similar overall clinical complication rates for Tutomesh® and SurgiMend®. Severe complication rates are comparable to those reported in literature for both products. Although the retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact, it is possible to opt for the cheaper alternative (Tutomesh®).
机译:背景/目的:使用脱细胞真皮基质(ADM)已成为乳房重建中一种广泛使用的选择。现有大量文献资料,总共进行了3200多次ADM重建。还没有报道SurgiMend ®和Tutomesh ®之间的正面对比。这些是关于在乳房重建中使用Tutomesh ®的首个比较临床数据。评估这些设备的术后并发症发生率和费用。患者和方法:这是对SurgiMend ®-胎儿牛脱细胞真皮基质和Tutomesh ®-乳腺牛心包胶原膜的2年经验的回顾性分析2014年至2015年共进行了45例重建。结果:45名患者使用SurgiMend ®(18例; 40%)或Tutomesh (27例; 60%)进行了总共45例基于种植体的重建。 SurgiMend ®的总并发症发生率为27.8%,Tutomesh ®的总并发症发生率为37.0%,包括血肿,术后皮肤刺激,感染,红胸综合征和翻修手术。最常见的并发症是术后红乳综合征。与Tutomesh ®(1例,3.7%)相比,SurgiMend ®(0例,0%)治疗的患者中需要修订手术的严重并发症没有显着差异。结论:这项回顾性分析显示Tutomesh ®和SurgiMend ®的总体临床并发症发生率相似。两种产品的严重并发症发生率均与文献报道的相当。尽管这项工作的回顾性限制了其临床影响,但仍可以选择更便宜的替代方案(Tutomesh ®)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号