Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Publication year range
1.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38513889

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy, whether immediate or delayed, is an integral part of the overall management of breast cancer. However, up to 40 % of reconstructed patients are not satisfied with the aesthetic result. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate satisfaction and quality of life according to the reconstruction techniques used in our center. The secondary objectives were to identify the parameters that could influence satisfaction and quality of life after surgery, to list the main complications, and the number of operations required to consider the reconstruction process as completed. METHOD: A retrospective monocentric study, RECOMA, was carried out at the CHRU Minjoz in Besançon. All patients who underwent immediate or delayed breast reconstruction between 2010 and 2021 were contacted by post or e-mail and asked to complete the standardized BREAST-Q postoperative module. RESULTS: Of 508 patients contacted, 149 were included. Reconstructed patients reported satisfaction, but also "average" quality of physical and psychological sexual life. Only the surgeon's assessment was rated as "good". There was no significant difference in satisfaction and quality of life depending on the reconstruction method chosen. On the other hand, patients who underwent nipple areolar complex (NAC) reconstruction had a significantly higher psychic quality of life score (P=0.02). In addition, a significant decrease in physical satisfaction was observed over time(P=0.049). An average of 2.4 operations was required to consider breast reconstruction complete. CONCLUSION: In our opinion, breast reconstruction is an essential procedure to be considered as soon as the indication for mastectomy is given, but it is a process that requires the patient to be prepared for a result that may be weaker than expected, may require several operations, and may be complicated.

2.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 7484, 2023 05 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37160998

ABSTRACT

The aim of this work was to evaluate and compare the incidence of perineal tears and Obstetrical anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) after vaginal delivery following a in utero fetal death (IUFD) compared with those with a live-birth. We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study using a database of all women who underwent a spontaneous vaginal delivery in the level III maternity ward. Exclusion criteria were breech presentation, cesarean section birth, instrumental delivery, multiple pregnancy, delivery before 24 + 6 weeks of gestation (WG) and termination of pregnancy for medical reasons. Women from the database were divided into two groups: an "in utero fetal death" (IUFD) group and a control group. Women were included in the IUFD group if they had a spontaneous vaginal delivery following a fetal demise after 24 + 6 WG in cephalic presentation between January 2006 and June 2020. Women in the "control" group were selected from the same database and were included if they underwent a spontaneous vaginal delivery of a live fetus in cephalic presentation, after 24 + 6 WG, during the same period. Each woman in the "IUFD" group was matched to two women (ratio 1:2) in the control group for parity, maternal age, body mass index, gestation and birth weight. The primary outcome was the presence of a sutured or unsutured perineal tear. During the study period, 31,208 patients delivered at a level III maternity hospital. Among them, 215 and 430 women were included in the IUFD group and the control group respectively. The two groups were comparable for all demographic and clinical characteristics except for an epidural analgesia (92% versus 70% in the control group, p < 0.01) and labor induction (86% versus 17% in the control group, p < 0.01). The incidence of any perineal tears was 13% (28/15) in the IUFD group versus 16% (70/430) in the control group. Relative risk of any perineal tears was non significative (RR = 0.8 IC95% [0.5-1.2]). The incidence of first-degree perineal tears was 10% in the IUFD group and 11% in the control group. The incidence of second-degree perineal tears was 18% in the IUFD group and 28% in the control group. Relative risk of first-degree perineal tears (RR = 0.88 95% CI [0.5-1.4]) and second-degree tears (RR = 0.51 95% CI [0.2-1.4]) were non significative. No obstetrical anal sphincter injury was found in either group. Vaginal delivery following a fetal demise did not appear to be either a risk factor or a protective factor for perineal tears. But there as a trend toward a lower incidence of second degree perineal tears in this context.


Subject(s)
Cesarean Section , Lacerations , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Retrospective Studies , Delivery, Obstetric , Lacerations/epidemiology , Hospitals, Maternity , Fetal Death/etiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...