medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8559 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0625 (Print)

2002, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Cir Plast 2002; 12 (3)

The contralateral breast: another determining factor for breast reconstruction

Trigos MI, Herrán MFS

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 119-127
PDF size: 161.09 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Different options for mammary reconstruction post mastectomy are presented in this paper emphasizing the contralateral breast as another decisive factor to select the procedure to be used. The objective is to present our currect criteria and its foundations to contribute to the permanence of postreconstruction mammary simmetry. For this, whenever it is possible, both breasts (the reconstructed and the healthy one) should have the same filler material, which can be of autologus tissue or prosthetic material to guarantee a similar behavior over time. Some reconstructive options and handling examples are presented, considering the condition of the healthy breast a decisive factor. It is emphasized the material which provides the volume for each breast be the same in both; a new reconstruction variable is also presented in two stages by means of the expansion of the mastectomized area in the first and in the secondary the placement of filler material which deepitehelialized TRAM flap in cases of moderate or big contralateral breast.


REFERENCES

  1. Trigos MI, Moya LA. Reconstrucción mamaria. Indicaciones y técnicas en 163 casos. Cir Plast Iberolatinoamer 1985; 11: 11-24.

  2. Durand JC, Pilleran JP. Cancer of the breast-limited excision follow by radiation therapy and results in 150 cases treated at the Curie Foundation, 1960-1970. Bull Cancer (París) 1977; 64: 611.

  3. Halsted WS. The results of operation for the cure of cancer of the breast performed at the John Hopkins Hospital from june 1889 january 1894. John Hopkins Hosp Rep 1894; 4: 297-350.

  4. Patey DH, Dyson WH. The prognosis of carcinoma of the breast in relation to type of operation performance. Brt J Cancer 1948; 2: 7-13.

  5. Trigos MI, Helow S. Detalles refinamientos y discrepancias en reconstrucciones mamarias. Cir Plast Iberolatinoam 1992; 2: 197-208.

  6. Argenta LC. Reconstruction of the breast by tissue expansion. Clin Plast Surg 1984; 11: 257-263.

  7. Cohen BE, Cronin ED. Breast reconstruction with latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap. Clin Plast Surg 1984; 11: 287-292.

  8. Hartrampf PF, Cheflan H, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69: 216-225.

  9. Santamaría E y cols. Reconstrucción mamaria con colgajo TRAM libre. ¿Se justifica el riesgo? Cir Plast 2001; 11: 49-60.

  10. Shaw WW. Superior gluteal free flap breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 1998; 25: 267-274.

  11. Boustred M, Nahai F. Inferior gluteal free flap breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 1998; 25: 275-282.

  12. Elliot LF, Hartrampf CR. The Rubens flap: the deep circunflex iliac artery flap. Clin Plast Surg 1998; 25: 283-292.

  13. Lewis JR. Use of a sliding flap from the abdomen to provide cover in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1979; 64: 491-497.

  14. Tai Y, Hasegawa H. A transverse abdominal flap for reconstruction after radical operations for recurrent breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 1974; 52: 52.

  15. Trigos MI. Gigantomastia y mamaplastia reductiva en adolescentes. Valoración a largo plazo. Cir Plast 1999; 9: 71-77.

  16. Codner MA, Bostwick J, Nahai F et al. Tram flap vascular delay for high-risk breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96: 1615.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com