RESUMEN
Objective:To compare the cost-effectiveness between open surgery and minimally invasive rotational surgery in patients with benign breast tumor, and to provide a theoretical support for the choice of surgical approach.Methods:The clinical data of 1 389 benign breast tumor patients underwent surgery from January 2017 to January 2020 in Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 374 patients were treated with open surgery (open group), and 1 015 patients were treated with minimally invasive rotational surgery (minimally invasive group). The surgery-related and cost-effectiveness analysis indexes were compared between two groups.Results:The operation time, incidence of hematoma/subcutaneous bruising and cosmetic result satisfactory rate in minimally invasive group were significantly higher than those in open group: (37.37 ± 6.66) min vs. (34.58 ± 8.95) min, 10.54% (107/1 015) vs. 5.35% (20/374) and 98.72% (1 002/1 015) vs. 95.99% (359/374); while the incision length, length of hospital stay and pain score were significantly less than those in open group: (5.00 ± 0.00) mm vs. (26.55 ± 4.73) mm, (1.03 ± 0.36) d vs. (2.85 ± 1.99) d, (1.76 ± 1.56) scores vs. (2.72 ± 1.27) scores, and there were statistical differences ( P<0.01). The patients were followed up until May 2022. There were no incision infection, recurrence and residual lesions in the two groups. The total cost and cost-effectiveness ratio in minimally invasive group were significantly lower than those in open group: (6 553 ± 1 150) yuan vs. (7 965 ± 3 323) yuan and 71.10 ± 13.61 vs. 88.96 ± 37.48, the benefit score was significantly higher than that in open group: (96.50 ± 3.89) scores vs. (88.92 ± 6.39) scores, and there were statistical differences ( P<0.01). Conclusions:Compared with open surgery, minimally invasive rotational surgery is less costly and more benefits, so minimally invasive surgery should be the preferred surgical procedure for benign breast tumor.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim of this report is to present a new reference for aesthetic mandible surgery using three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography-based treatment planning for orthognathic surgery which can be implemented in surgical planning and perioperative procedure. METHODS: To make an objective standard for evaluating aesthetic mandibular outline, we make an aesthetic scoring criteria with consideration of asymmetry, broad mandibular border line, and prominent mandibular angle. Two maxillofacial surgeons and two orthodontists rated their aesthetical evaluation from 1 to 5. Experimental group consisting of 47 female and 38 male patients who had rotational orthognathic two-jaw surgery from 2010 to 2011 were chosen according to aesthetic scoring done by two maxillofacial surgeons and two orthodontists. A high aesthetic score (≥16) means the facial contour is symmetric, with no broad and narrow aesthetic mandible frontal profiles. Control A group consisted of ten female and ten male patients who had no orthognathic surgery experience and low aesthetic score (≤10). Control B group consisted of ten female and ten male patients who had no orthognathic surgery experience and had anaesthetic mandibular frontal profile and a high aesthetic score (≥16). The three-dimensional image of the patient was taken from dental cone-beam CT (DCT) scanning (experimental group and control A group: 6 months DCT after surgery, control B group: 1st visit DCT). Each DCT was reformatted to reorient the 3D image using 3D analyzing program (OnDemand3D, cybermed Inc, CA, USA). After selection of 12 landmarks and the construction of reoriented horizontal, vertical, and coronal reference lines, 15 measurements were taken in 3D analysis of frontal mandibular morphology. Afterwards, horizontal and vertical linear measurements and angular measurements, linear ratio were obtained. RESULTS: Mean Go’(Rt)-Me’-Go’(Lt) angular measurement was 100.74 ± 2.14 in female patients and 105.37 ± 3.62 in male patients. These showed significant difference with control A group in both genders. Ratio of Go’(Rt),Go’(Lt)-Me’ length to some linear measurements (ratio of Me’-Cd’RtCd’Lt to Me’-Go’(Rt)Go’(Lt), ratio of Me’-Go’ to Me’-Go’(Rt)Go’(Lt), ratio of Go’(Rt)-Go’(Lt) to Me’-Go’(Rt)Go’(Lt)) showed significant difference with control A group in both genders. CONCLUSION: This study was intended to find some standard measurement of mandible frontal view in 3D analysis of aesthetic patient. So, these potential measurement value may be helpful for orthognathic treatment planning to have more aesthetic and perspective outcomes.