Aleman Paredes Kenneth, Castillo Jennifer V, Montelongo Quevedo Mauricio, Ocejo Arantza, Vázquez Lechuga Héctor A, Navarro Camara Karime M, Ponce Figueroa Daniela, Falcón García Diana K, Nolasco Mendoza Carina L, Castillo Jaqueline L, Victoria Enriquez Jose A, Flores Valdés Jose R
Surgery, Hospital General Regional No. 220 "José Vicente Villada", Toluca, MEX.
General Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, MEX.
Cureus. 2024 Jul 3;16(7):e63772. doi: 10.7759/cureus.63772. eCollection 2024 Jul.
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Surgical treatments, including mastectomy and subsequent breast reconstruction, are critical components of breast cancer management. This systematic review compares the outcomes of flap versus implant reconstruction post-mastectomy, focusing on aesthetic differences, pain, recovery, and psychological adaptation. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect databases. Inclusion criteria targeted studies comparing aesthetic outcomes, pain, recovery costs, duration, and psychological adaptation between flap and implant breast reconstructions. We excluded non-English and non-Spanish studies, case reports, and those without full-text availability. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). From an initial pool of 25,881 articles, 16 high-quality studies involving 14,196 participants were selected for synthesis. Flap reconstruction was associated with higher patient satisfaction regarding aesthetic outcomes and psychological well-being but also had higher complication rates, including infections and wound dehiscence. Implant reconstruction showed fewer complications but did not achieve the same level of patient satisfaction. Flap reconstruction, despite its higher complication rates, tends to provide superior aesthetic and psychological outcomes compared to implant reconstruction. These findings highlight the importance of personalized treatment plans considering individual patient needs and preferences. Future research should focus on long-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and standardized outcome measures to further delineate the comparative effectiveness of these reconstruction techniques. Personalized care and ongoing research are essential to improving the quality of life for breast cancer survivors undergoing reconstruction.
乳腺癌是全球女性中最常被诊断出的癌症,也是癌症死亡的主要原因。包括乳房切除术及后续乳房重建在内的外科治疗是乳腺癌管理的关键组成部分。本系统评价比较了乳房切除术后皮瓣重建与植入物重建的效果,重点关注美学差异、疼痛、恢复情况及心理适应。我们遵循《系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目》(PRISMA)2020指南,在PubMed、Cochrane和ScienceDirect数据库中进行了全面的文献检索。纳入标准为比较皮瓣和植入物乳房重建之间美学效果、疼痛、恢复成本、持续时间及心理适应的研究。我们排除了非英文和非西班牙文研究、病例报告以及无全文的研究。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)评估偏倚风险。从最初的25881篇文章中,筛选出16项涉及14196名参与者的高质量研究进行综合分析。皮瓣重建在美学效果和心理健康方面的患者满意度较高,但并发症发生率也较高,包括感染和伤口裂开。植入物重建的并发症较少,但未达到相同的患者满意度水平。尽管皮瓣重建的并发症发生率较高,但与植入物重建相比,它往往能提供更好的美学和心理效果。这些发现凸显了考虑个体患者需求和偏好制定个性化治疗方案的重要性。未来的研究应聚焦于长期随机对照试验(RCT)和标准化结局指标,以进一步明确这些重建技术的比较效果。个性化护理和持续研究对于提高接受重建的乳腺癌幸存者的生活质量至关重要。