top of page

Professional Group

Public·178 members

Serial Number Virtual Plastic Surgery 1005 [PATCHED]



It is not possible to predict cup size when planning surgery; however, it has been thought that for every 100-300 grams of tissue removed, your breast will decrease approximately one bra cup size. Your board-certified plastic surgeon will be able to determine a safe amount of breast tissue to remove.




Serial Number Virtual Plastic Surgery 1005



The authors of the BRAVO study reached several conclusions about reduction mammoplasty, most notably that breast size or the amount of breast tissue removed does not have any relationship to the outcome of breast reduction surgery (Kerrigan et al, 2002; Collins et al, 2002). The authors reach the remarkable conclusion that a woman with normal sized breasts who has only a few ounces of breast tissue removed is as likely to receive as much benefit from breast reduction surgery as a women with large breasts who has substantially more breast tissue removed. However, the BRAVO study is not of sufficient quality to reach reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of breast reduction surgery as a pain intervention. Although the BRAVO study is described as a controlled study, the "control" group is obtained, not from the same cohort, but from a separate cohort of individuals recruited from newspaper advertisements and solicitations at meetings for inclusion in a study of the population burden of breast hypertrophy; 75 % of this control group were obtained from 2 centers, but the characteristics of those 2 centers were not described. The control group was not followed longitudinally or treated according to any protocol to ensure that they received optimal conservative management; conclusions about the lack of effectiveness of conservative management were based on their responses to a questionnaire about whether subjects tried any of 15 conservative interventions, and whether or not they thought these interventions provided relief of symptoms. Based largely upon these results, Nguyen et al (2004) reached the conclusion that a trial of conservative management is not an appropriate criterion for insurance coverage, even though responses to the BRAVO questionnaire indicated that operative candidates and hypertrophy controls received at least some pain relief from all of the conservative interventions, and for some conservative interventions, virtually all subjects reported at least some pain relief. In addition, Nguyen et al (2004) ignored a wealth of published evidence of the effectiveness of physical therapy, analgesics and other conservative measures on back and neck pain generally.


The operative group in the BRAVO study was drawn from a number of surgical practices that volunteered to participate in the study; no details are provided about how each center selected candidates for reduction mammoplasty, or how they chose patients who underwent mammoplasty for inclusion in the study. Of 291 subjects who were selected for inclusion in the study, only 179 completed follow-up. Thus, more than 1/3 of operative subjects selected for inclusion in the study did not complete it; most of the operative subjects who did not complete the study were lost to follow-up. Although the BRAVO study nominally included a "control group", there was no comparison group of subjects selected from the same cohort, who were randomized or otherwise appropriately assigned to reduce bias, and treated with conservative management according to a protocol to ensure optimal conservative care. Clinical outcomes were measured by operative subjects' responses to a questionnaire about symptoms and quality of life. The authors stated that operative subjects were told that their responses to the questionnaire were not to be used for insurance and thus the subjects had no motivation to exaggerate symptoms prior to surgery in questionnaire responses; however, it is not clear whether operative subjects would be willing to submit responses to a questionnaire from the doctor that differed substantially from the history that they provided to the doctor during their preoperative evaluation. Although operative subjects were examined before and after surgery, there was no attempt to employ any blinded or objective measures of disability and function to verify these self-reports. Operative subjects who completed the study reported reductions in pain and improvements in quality of life; however, these improvements may be attributable to placebo effects, the natural history of back pain, other concurrent interventions, regression to the mean, improvements in cosmesis (for quality of life measures), or other confounding variables that may bias in interpretation of results. Thus, this study would not be considered of sufficient quality to provide reliable evidence of the effectiveness of a pain intervention.


In a Cochrane review, Khan and colleagues (2015) stated that wound drains are often used after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast in order to reduce potential complications. However, it is unclear if there is any evidence to support this practice. These researchers compared the safety and effectiveness of the use of wound drains following elective plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures of the breast. For the first update of this review, these investigators searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched March 4, 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid Medline (2012 to March 3, 2015); Ovid Medline (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations March 3, 2015); Ovid Embase(2012 to March 3, 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to March 4, 2015). There were no restrictions on the basis of date or language of publication. Three review authors undertook independent screening of the search results. All RCTs that compared the use of a wound drain with no wound drain following plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast (breast augmentation, breast reduction and breast reconstruction) in women were eligible. Two review authors undertook independent data extraction of study characteristics, methodological quality and outcomes (e.g., infection, other wound complications, pain, and length of hospital stay [LOS]). Risk of bias was assessed independently by 2review authors. These researchers calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. A total of 3 RCTs were identified and included in the review out of 190 studies that were initially screened; all evaluated wound drainage after breast reduction surgery. No new trials were identified for this first update. In total there were 306 women in the 3 trials, and 505 breasts were studied (254 drained, and 251 who were not drained). Apart from a significantly shorter LOS for those participants who did not have drains (MD 0.77; 95 % CI: 0.40 to 1.14), there was no statistically significant impact of the use of drains on outcomes. The authors concluded that the limited evidence available showed no significant benefit of using post-operative wound drains in reduction mammoplasty, although LOS may be shorter when drains are not used. They stated that no data are available for breast augmentation or breast reconstruction, and this requires investigation.


Safran and colleagues (2021) noted that several technologies and innovative approaches continue to emerge for the optimal management of gynecomastia by plastic surgeons. In a systematic review, these investigators examined the role of radiotherapy in this context. They evaluated the use of radiotherapy for the prevention and treatment of gynecomastia incidence or recurrence by plastic surgeons. A total of 15 articles met the inclusion criteria for review. The mean incidence of gynecomastia was 70 % in the high-risk population examined representing prostate cancer patients on estrogen or anti-androgen therapy. Radiotherapy was shown to significantly reduce the incidence to a median of 23 %, with all 6 RCTs assessed demonstrating a statistically significant decrease in incidence following radiotherapy prophylaxis. Doses examined ranged from 8 to 16 Gy, delivered between 1 and 11 fractions. Complications following radiotherapy were minor and self-limiting in all cases, restricted to minor skin reactions, and associated with larger radiotherapy doses delivered in fewer fractions. The median complication rate was 12.4 % with no major complications, such as neoplastic, pulmonary, or adverse cardiac outcomes. While the efficacy of radiotherapy as a therapeutic modality for gynecomastia was also established, it was shown to be less effective than other available options. The authors concluded that low-dose radiotherapy to the male breast might be a safe and effective strategy to prevent gynecomastia incidence or recurrence in high-risk patients. Moreover, these researchers stated that further studies are needed within the common gynecomastia population managed by plastic surgeons to examine the clinical and economical utility of this intervention before a recommendation for its ubiquitous adoption in plastic surgery can be made to continue improving outcomes for high-risk gynecomastia patients. 350c69d7ab


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page