ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although some papers have analyzed patient satisfaction after traditional abdominoplasty, studies that have specifically assessed patient satisfaction on abdominal reconstruction after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) surgery are lacking. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess satisfaction, specifically for abdominoplasty results, in patients who underwent breast reconstruction with a single DIEP flap. METHODS: This retrospective study included 53 consecutive patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstruction with a DIEP flap. The patients were all clinically evaluated during a specific consultation and answered a satisfaction survey based on a four-point scale (unsatisfied, satisfied, happy, and very happy). RESULTS: A total of 50 patients responded to the survey. The average age was 52.3 years. This study revealed that 52% of the patients were happy or very happy with the aesthetic result of their abdomen. A total of 34% of the patients confessed that they preferred their abdomen before surgery. A further analysis of the dissatisfied patients showed particular dissatisfaction with dog-ears (50%), residual abdominal overhang (18%), or the horizontal scar (12%). The average distance between the horizontal scar and vulvar anterior commissure was 10.6 cm. A total of 86% of the patients were happy or very happy with the preoperative counseling. CONCLUSIONS: The authors note the necessity to give detailed preoperative information to explain the final abdominal aesthetic result, which can be quite different from the patient's expectations.
Subject(s)
Abdominal Wall/surgery , Epigastric Arteries/transplantation , Mammaplasty/methods , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Perforator Flap/blood supply , Transplant Donor Site/surgery , Adult , Aged , Female , Graft Survival , Humans , Mammaplasty/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Outcome , Wound Healing/physiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is an increasingly studied technique. The authors of a meta-analysis published in 2012 had already confirmed the effectiveness of LLLT for radio-induced mucitis. Our purpose was to check its indication for similar pathologies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The articles were selected with the PubMed engine. The selected terms were "Low Level Laser Therapy", "oral surgery", "oral infection", "oral inflammation", "oral mucosal lesions", "oral mucosal disease", "stomatitis", "aphtous", "Herpes", "oral lichen planus", and "oral ulceration". The analysis was made on the following criteria: assessment criteria, methodological quality, and bias. We estimated the level of proof according to Sackett's modified score. RESULTS: Six articles were selected. Two focused on the effectiveness of LLLT for Herpes simplex virus 1 oral symptoms. Two focused on the effectiveness of LLLT for oral lichen planus. One focused on the effectiveness of LLLT for recurrent aphthous stomatitis. The last one focused on the usefulness of LLLT to control stomatitis pain in the hand-foot-and-mouth disease. CONCLUSION: All the selected studies were assessed with a Sackett's score of IV. No study presented the required quality standards to recommend the treatment of LLLT for the selected indications.
Subject(s)
Infections/radiotherapy , Low-Level Light Therapy , Mouth Diseases/radiotherapy , Stomatitis/radiotherapy , Humans , Infections/epidemiology , Low-Level Light Therapy/methods , Mouth Diseases/epidemiology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Stomatitis/epidemiology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
We report a case series of seven patients with bacterial cellulitis of the face complicating a filler injection for cosmetic reason, treated in a university hospital from 2005 to 2012. There were seven women aged 34 to 57 years. Two patients had a deep collection requiring surgical excision combined with antibiotics. Five patients were treated with antibiotics only. In two cases the bacteria was found streptococcus A and in one case Staphylococcus aureus. One patient required hospitalization in an intensive care unit. Only patients who needed surgical treatment showed moderate aesthetic sequelae.
