背景:随着最近向光滑组织扩张器(TE)的过渡,TE亚型之间的功能差异尚未完全阐明。本研究评估了两种常用的Mentor平滑TE模型在TE特征和并发症方面的差异,Artoura和CPX4。
方法:对2012年至2022年接受光滑MentorArtoura或CPX4TE的患者进行回顾性审查。人口统计数据,围手术期信息,疼痛评分,TE变量,癌症特征,收集并发症。多变量分析用于评估TE亚型与并发症之间的关系,同时控制人口统计学,TE特性,辐射,和化疗暴露。
结果:在研究期间,使用了62种光滑的ArtouraTE和79种光滑的CPX4TE。接受CPX4光滑植入物的患者往往年龄较大(51.09岁vs46.18岁,P=0.02),并且具有较高的体重指数(28.66vs23.50kg/m2,P<0.001)。患者合并症之间没有差异。CPX4平均需要更大的总填充体积(422.23对348.07mL,P=0.01),并且排水持续时间更长(16.91比14.33天,P=0.05)。Artoura和CPX4之间的TE平面位置没有差异。此外,并发症发生率没有差异,包括感染,血肿,血清学,伤口破裂,TE更换,和包膜挛缩。控制体重指数时,糖尿病,TE平面放置,无细胞真皮基质的使用,辐射暴露,和化疗,TE亚型与任何个体并发症之间无关联.
结论:MentorArtoura和CPX4植入物之间的总填充量和引流持续时间差异显着不同,这可能会影响TE亚型的选择。然而,Artoura和CPX4具有优异且相当的安全性,并发症发生率相似,即使在控制人口统计学和TE特征时也是如此。
BACKGROUND: With the recent transition to smooth tissue expanders (TEs), functional differences between TE subtypes have not been fully elucidated. This study evaluated the differences in TE characteristics and complications between 2 commonly used Mentor smooth TE models, Artoura and CPX4.
METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received either smooth Mentor Artoura or CPX4 TE from 2012 to 2022 was conducted. Demographic data, perioperative information, pain scores, TE variables, cancer characteristics, and complications were collected. A multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between TE subtype and complications while controlling for demographic, TE characteristics, radiation, and chemotherapy exposure.
RESULTS: During the study period, 62 smooth Artoura TEs and 79 smooth CPX4 TEs were used. Patients who received CPX4 smooth implants tended to be older (51.09 vs 46.18 years old, P = 0.02) and have a higher body mass index (28.66 vs 23.50 kg/m 2 , P < 0.001). There were no differences among patient comorbidities. CPX4 required on average a greater total fill volume (422.23 vs 348.07 mL, P = 0.01) and had a greater drain duration (16.91 vs 14.33 days, P = 0.05). There were no differences in TE plane placement between Artoura and CPX4. Additionally, there were no differences in complication rates, including infection, hematomas, seromas, wound breakdown, TE replacement, and capsular contracture. When controlling for body mass index, diabetes, TE plane placement, acellular dermal matrix use, radiation exposure, and chemotherapy, there was no association between TE subtype and any individual complication.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in total fill volume and drain duration were significantly different between Mentor Artoura and CPX4 implants, which may influence TE subtype selection. However, Artoura and CPX4 have excellent and equivalent safety profiles with similar complication rates, even when controlling for demographic and TE characteristics.