Correction of Rectus Abdominis Diastasis: A Prospective Comparative Study Between a New Suturable Polypropylene Mesh vs Polypropylene Standard Suture Plication.

BACKGROUND: Duramesh (Mesh Suture Inc., Chicago, IL) is a new suturing concept, combining the principles of mesh with the precision, flexibility, and versatility of a suture, suitable also for abdominal rectus diastasis (ARD) correction. OBJECTIVES: This prospective research aimed to compare mesh with the standard polypropylene suture plication for rectus diastasis repair with regard to safety (infection, seroma, hematoma, surgical wound dehiscence, and fistula rates and hospital stay); effectiveness (ARD recurrence by ultrasound sonography, palpability of the muscular suture, surgical time, and postoperative pain evaluation); and satisfaction of the patients based on the BODY-Q, a patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: Sixty-five of the initial 70 patients who underwent rectus diastasis repair with a 6-month follow-up were randomly divided into 2 groups, comprising 33 patients treated with Duramesh and 32 patients treated with standard 0 polypropylene suture plication. Data regarding infection, seroma, hematoma, surgical wound dehiscence, and fistula rates; hospital stay; ARD recurrence; palpability of the muscular suture; surgical time; postoperative pain evaluation (measured by visual analog scale, or VAS); and the BODY-Q were analyzed by Prism 9 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA). RESULTS: No significant differences were reported between the 2 groups with regard to infection, seroma, hematoma, surgical wound dehiscence, and fistula rates and hospital stay. The mesh decreased the time required to perform plication compared with standard polypropylene detached sutures. No statistically significant differences were found with respect to the VAS and BODY-Q data. CONCLUSIONS: Duramesh 0 application for rectus diastasis repair is safe and effective without compromising aesthetic improvement when compared with standard 0 polypropylene plication.

Switching from Galenic to Advanced Dressings or Vacuum Assisted Closure Therapy Can Improve Quality of Life of Patients with Chronic Non-Responsive Pressure Skin Ulcers: Preliminary Data with Italian Translation of WOUND-Q.

Objective: A few studies have focused on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with chronic non-responsive pressure skin ulcers. The aim of this study was to assess how correct treatment (advanced wound care [AWC] dressings alone or vacuum assisted closure [VAC] therapy alone) changes the QoL of these patients. Approach: One hundred six patients with chronic non-responsive pressure skin ulcers, who had previously used galenic dressings, applied without proper therapeutic indication, were included in this study. We administered the WOUND-Q, at time 0 and after 1 month of appropriate therapy, to assess patient-reported outcome measures. Group 1 consisted of 30 patients treated with advanced dressings, Group 2: 22 patients treated with VAC therapy, and Group 3: 30 patients continuing conventional galenic dressings (Control group). Statistical analysis allowed us to analyze QoL changes over time and to compare WOUND-Q Group 1 and 2 deltas with those of Group 3. The study followed the STROBE statement. Results and Innovation: In all the scales evaluated (Assessment, Drainage, Smell, Life impact, Psychological, Social, Sleep and Dressing), there were significant improvements in mean values for Groups 1 and 2. Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn's multiple-comparisons tests and Brown-Forsythe and Welch Analysis of Variance tests demonstrated significant differences between deltas of Group 1 and Group 2 compared with those of Group 3 for most scales analyzed. Conclusions: Administration of the WOUND-Q demonstrated that the application of advanced dressings alone or VAC therapy alone positively affects the QoL of patients with chronic nonresponsive pressure wounds, in comparison with galenic dressings alone. The WOUND-Q has been shown to be a valid tool in studying changes in QoL of these patients.

Impact of Incisional Access Site in Primary Breast Augmentation: Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction with SCAR-Q.

BACKGROUND: Scarring at the incision site represents one of the most impactful outcomes in breast augmentation surgery for both the patient and the surgeon. Few studies exist with the aim of assessing patient perception of scarring outcomes in primary breast augmentation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on quality of life of scars by submitting the SCAR-Q in patients who underwent primary augmentation mammoplasty. METHODS: The SCAR-Q was administered at one and at 6 months after surgery to 54 consecutive patients underwent primary breast augmentation with inferior hemi-periareolar or inframammary incision. A total of 50 patients were divided into two groups of 21 patients with inferior hemi-periareolar incision and 29 patients with inframammary fold incision, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with Prism 9. RESULTS: All mean values of the three SCAR-Q scales tend to decrease at the second administration meaning that the perception of the scar is better at time 6 from the patient perspective. In the "Psychosocial scale," lower values at both 1 month and 6 months for group 2 compared to group 1 were shown. Unpaired T tests with Welch's correction showed significance for delta values variations between the two groups with P values <0.0001. CONCLUSION: Data show that patients undergoing primary breast augmentation have a scar that has no significant impact. Patients with inframammary fold scar have less psychosocial impact than those with inferior hemi-periareolar scar. There were no statistically significant differences in scar-related symptoms and scar appearance between scar along the inframammary groove and inferior hemi-periareolar scar. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: Case series study. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors   www.springer.com/00266 .