Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar
AI InsightGroup B: 5.3±0.2, p=0.001).Conclusion: Our study suggests that the periareolar approach would be more aesthetic, show better healing, and have a smaller scar size in female patients. (Anatol J Cardiol 2018; 20: 283-8)
📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale
Özet
Objective: All innovations in cardiac surgery provide us with new techniques to perform surgery through smaller incisions with less invasive and best cosmetic results. After promising results in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS), pain and cosmetic appearance became important end points, especially for female patients. In the current study, we intended to evaluate the surgical results and cosmetic satisfaction with the periareolar and submammary incision types in cardiac surgery.Methods: Ninety-four female patients underwent MICS between July 2013 and March 2018. MICS was performed in 62 patients via periareolar incision and in 32 patients via submammarian incision. We investigated the incision size, wound infection, pain levels by using a postoperative standard pain-level questionnaire, the postoperative scar size, and patient satisfaction using a postoperative patient questionnaire.Results: Periareolar incision size was smaller than the submammary incision (Group A: 5.6±0.6 vs. Group B: 6.7±0.8, p=0.001). Four patients from Group B had superficial wound infection (p=0.01). Patients who underwent MICS via periareolar incision and submammary incision had similar pain level (p=0.2). The scar tissue was smaller in size and postoperatively healed better in the following days for the patients with periareolar incision due to the elastic structure of breast tissue. (Group A: 4.3±0.4 vs. Group B: 5.3±0.2, p=0.001).Conclusion: Our study suggests that the periareolar approach would be more aesthetic, show better healing, and have a smaller scar size in female patients. (Anatol J Cardiol 2018; 20: 283-8)