PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to compare patients in whom wide chest wall resection and reconstruction or primary closure was performed.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 63 patients who underwent chest wall resection and reconstruction between January 2018 and December 2022 were included in the retrospective study. The patients were divided into two groups: the first group, which included 31 patients (14 males, 17 females; mean age: 44.6±16.4 years; range, 16 to 71 years) who were closed primarily, and the second group, constituting 32 patients (25 males, 7 females; mean age: 54.6±17.2 years; range, 9 to 80 years) who underwent reconstruction with plates and meshes.
UNASSIGNED: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of smoking and diabetes. Primary chest wall or metastatic tumor was determined in 33 patients; benign tumor and trauma were determined in 30 patients. The difference between the two groups in mean defect diameter (p=0.009), mean number of plates used (p<0.001), and mean hospital stay (p<0.001) was statistically significant. However, there was no significant difference in terms of complications (p=0.426).
UNASSIGNED: Wide chest wall resection and reconstruction is a safe and feasible surgical procedure when compared with primary closure.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 63 patients who underwent chest wall resection and reconstruction between January 2018 and December 2022 were included in the retrospective study. The patients were divided into two groups: the first group, which included 31 patients (14 males, 17 females; mean age: 44.6±16.4 years; range, 16 to 71 years) who were closed primarily, and the second group, constituting 32 patients (25 males, 7 females; mean age: 54.6±17.2 years; range, 9 to 80 years) who underwent reconstruction with plates and meshes.
UNASSIGNED: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of smoking and diabetes. Primary chest wall or metastatic tumor was determined in 33 patients; benign tumor and trauma were determined in 30 patients. The difference between the two groups in mean defect diameter (p=0.009), mean number of plates used (p<0.001), and mean hospital stay (p<0.001) was statistically significant. However, there was no significant difference in terms of complications (p=0.426).
UNASSIGNED: Wide chest wall resection and reconstruction is a safe and feasible surgical procedure when compared with primary closure.
摘要：
■本研究旨在比较进行宽胸壁切除和重建或初次闭合的患者。
■在2018年1月至2022年12月期间接受胸壁切除和重建的63例患者被纳入回顾性研究。将患者分为两组:第一组,其中包括31名患者(14名男性，17名女性；平均年龄：44.6±16.4岁；范围，16至71岁)主要是关闭的，第二组，构成32名患者(25名男性，7名女性；平均年龄：54.6±17.2岁；范围，9至80岁）进行了板和网格重建。
■在吸烟和糖尿病方面，两组之间没有显着差异。33例患者确定了原发性胸壁或转移性肿瘤；30例患者确定了良性肿瘤和创伤。两组平均缺损直径的差异（p=0.009），使用的平均平板数（p<0.001），平均住院时间（p<0.001）有统计学意义。然而,在并发症方面无显著差异(p=0.426).
■与初次闭合相比，宽胸壁切除和重建是安全可行的外科手术。
■在2018年1月至2022年12月期间接受胸壁切除和重建的63例患者被纳入回顾性研究。将患者分为两组:第一组,其中包括31名患者(14名男性，17名女性；平均年龄：44.6±16.4岁；范围，16至71岁)主要是关闭的，第二组，构成32名患者(25名男性，7名女性；平均年龄：54.6±17.2岁；范围，9至80岁）进行了板和网格重建。
■在吸烟和糖尿病方面，两组之间没有显着差异。33例患者确定了原发性胸壁或转移性肿瘤；30例患者确定了良性肿瘤和创伤。两组平均缺损直径的差异（p=0.009），使用的平均平板数（p<0.001），平均住院时间（p<0.001）有统计学意义。然而,在并发症方面无显著差异(p=0.426).
■与初次闭合相比，宽胸壁切除和重建是安全可行的外科手术。
