Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Erschienen in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 3/2019

01.02.2019 | Original Article

The New Trend of Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Objective Evaluation of the Quality of Online Information for Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction

verfasst von: M. Marcasciano, J. Frattaroli, F. L. R. Mori, F. Lo Torto, P. Fioramonti, E. Cavalieri, J. Kaciulyte, M. Greco, D. Casella, D. Ribuffo

Erschienen in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The Web has increasingly become the major source of information about health care, and patients who need to undergo breast reconstruction often use the internet to acquire an initial knowledge on the subject. We would like to present our study that investigates the quality of published information on pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. We searched the term “Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction” on Google® and Yahoo®. Forty-two web sites were selected and underwent qualitative and quantitative assessment using the expanded EQIP tool. The analysis of document contents showed a critical lack of information about qualitative risks and side-effects descriptions, treatment of potential complications, alert signs for the patient and precautions that the patient may take. Health professionals should inform patients about the potential difficulties of identifying reliable informational web sites about pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. The quality of available information should be improved, especially the important topics included in the content data section of the modified EQIP tool.
Level of Evidence IV 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.
Literatur
1.
Arif N, Ghezzi P (2018) Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. Breast 37:6–12PubMedCrossRef
2.
Nguyen SK, Ingledew PA (2013) Tangled in the breast cancer web: an evaluation of the usage of web-based information resources by breast cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 28(4):662–668PubMedCrossRef
3.
Walden JL, Panagopoulous G, Shrader SW (2010) Contemporary decision making and perception in patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 30(3):395–403PubMedCrossRef
4.
Manley L, Ghezzi P (2018) The quality of online health information on breast augmentation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(10):e62–e63PubMedCrossRef
5.
Waterman AD, Stanley SL, Covelli T et al (2006) Living donation decision making: recipients’ concerns and educational needs. Prog Transpl 16:17–23CrossRef
6.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386CrossRefPubMed
7.
Marcasciano M, Mazzocchi M, Kaciulyte J, Spissu N, Casella D, Ribuffo D, Dessy LA (2018) Skin cancers and dermal substitutes: is it safe? Review of the literature and presentation of a 2-stage surgical protocol for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancers of the head in fragile patients. Int Wound J 15(5):756–768PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
8.
Dessy LA, Marcasciano M, Fanelli B, Mazzocchi M, Ribuffo D (2016) Surgical treatment of nasal non-melanoma skin cancer in elderly patients using dermal substitute. Acta Otolaryngol 136(12):1299–1303PubMedCrossRef
9.
Weir HK, Anderson RN, Coleman King SM et al (2016) Heart disease and cancer deaths—trends and projections in the United States, 1969–2020. Prev Chronic Dis 13:E157PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
11.
Panchal H, Matros E (2017) Current trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):7S–13SPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Kamali P, Zettervall SL, Wu W et al (2017) Differences in the reporting of racial and socioeconomic disparities among three large national databases for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:795–807PubMedCrossRef
13.
Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ et al (2013) A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:15–23PubMedCrossRef
14.
Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Sordi S, Kothari A, Kovacs T, Lo Torto F, Cigna E, Ribuffo D, Calabrese C (2018) Nipple-sparing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with TiLoop® Bra mesh in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: a prospective study of long-term and patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q. Breast 39:8–13PubMedCrossRef
15.
Maruccia M, Di Taranto G, Onesti MG (2018) One-stage muscle-sparing breast reconstruction in elderly patients: a new tool for retaining excellent quality of life. Breast J 24(2):180–183PubMedCrossRef
16.
Walia GS, Aston J, Bello R, Mackert GA, Pedreira RA, Cho BH, Carl HM, Rada EM, Rosson GD, Sacks JM (2018) Prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander placement: a clinical and quality of life outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6(4):e1731PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Onesti MG, Maruccia M, Di Taranto G, Albano A, Soda G, Ballesio L, Scuderi N (2017) Clinical, histological, and ultrasound follow-up of breast reconstruction with one-stage muscle-sparing “wrap” technique: a single-center experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70(11):1527–1536PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Carlesimo B, Lo Torto F, Rossi A, Marcasciano M, Ruggiero M (2014) Long-term result of bilateral pectoralis major muscle advancement flap in median sternotomy wound infections. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 18(24):3767–3772PubMed
20.
Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW (2002) Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 17(3):180–185PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Macdonald C, Lloyd MS, Mathur B, Ramakrishnan V (2010) Breast reconstruction: a quantitative assessment of the quality of information available to patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(10):e752–e753PubMedCrossRef
22.
Cline RJ, Haynes KM (2001) Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 16(6):671–692PubMedCrossRef
23.
Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV (2008) Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns 70(3):407–411PubMedCrossRef
24.
Eysenbach G, Köhler C (2002) How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 324(7337):573–577PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Lynch NP, Lang B, Angelov S, McGarrigle SA, Boyle TJ, Al-Azawi D, Connolly EM (2017) Breast reconstruction post mastectomy—let’s Google it. Accessibility, readability and quality of online information. Breast 32:126–129PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Palma AF, Zuk G, Raptis DA, Franck S, Eylert G, Frueh FS, Guggenheim M, Shafighi M (2016) Quality of information for women seeking breast augmentation in the Internet. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 50(5):262–271PubMedCrossRef
28.
Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF et al (2015) Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 150:9–16PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zhang P, Li CZ, Wu CT et al (2017) Comparison of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy and mastectomy alone for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:285–293PubMedCrossRef
30.
Fausto A, Bernini M, Giacomo LD et al (2018) Diagnostic value and safety of dynamic MRI of contralateral breast and axilla in subjects with tissue expander. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(9):1282–1285PubMedCrossRef
31.
Wallace MS, Wallace AM, Lee J et al (1996) Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women. Pain 66:195–205PubMedCrossRef
32.
Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M et al (2016) Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4:e708PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Maruccia M, Mazzocchi M, Dessy LA et al (2016) One-stage breast reconstruction techniques in elderly patients to preserve quality of life. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 20:5058–5066PubMed
34.
Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M et al (2017) Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg 6(6):682–688PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Marcasciano M, Conversi A, Kaciulyte J, Dessy LA (2017) RE: prosthetic breast implant rupture: imaging—pictorial essay: full cooperation between surgeon and radiologist—”The Best of Both Worlds”. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(6):1478–1480CrossRef
36.
Lo Torto F, Parisi P, Casella D et al (2018) Impact of evolving radiation therapy techniques on implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(1):182e–183ePubMedCrossRef
37.
Lo Torto F, Vaia N, Casella D et al (2018) Delaying implant-based mammary reconstruction after radiotherapy does not decrease capsular contracture: an in vitro study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(1):28–29PubMedCrossRef
38.
39.
Lee KT, Mun GH (2016) Updated evidence of acellular dermal matrix use for implant-based breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 23(2):600–610PubMedCrossRef
40.
Bernini M, Calabrese C, Cecconi L et al (2016) Subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: surgical, functional, and aesthetic results after long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(12):e574PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L et al (2014) TiLoop® Bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single institution series. Eur J Plast Surg 37(11):599–604PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Casella D, Calabrese C, Bianchi S et al (2016) Subcutaneous tissue expander placement with synthetic titanium-coated mesh in breast reconstruction: long-term results. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(12):e577PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Dessy LA, Maruccia M, Mazzocchi M, Scuderi N (2014) Treatment of post mastectomy pain syndrome after mastopexy with botulinum toxin. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(6):873–874PubMedCrossRef
44.
Marcasciano M, Kaciulyte J, Gentilucci M et al (2018) Skin-reduction breast reconstructions with prepectoral implant covered by a combined dermal flap and titanium-coated polypropylene mesh. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(8):1123–1128CrossRef
45.
Vaia N, Lo Torto F, Marcasciano M et al (2018) From the “Fat Capsule” to the “Fat Belt”: limiting protective lipofilling on irradiated expanders for breast reconstruction to selective key areas. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(4):986–994CrossRef
46.
Calabrese C, Kothari A, Badylak S et al (2018) Oncological safety of stromal vascular fraction enriched fat grafting in two-stage breast reconstruction after nipple sparing mastectomy: long-term results of a prospective study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 22(15):4768–4777PubMed
47.
Dessy LA, Marcasciano M, Pacitti F, Rossi A, Mazzocchi M (2015) A simple device for syringe-to-syringe transfer during lipofilling. Aesthet Surg J 35(1):91–93PubMedCrossRef
48.
Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC (2007) Untangling the Web—the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician–patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns 68(3):218–224PubMedCrossRef
49.
Quinn EM, Corrigan MA, McHugh SM, Murphy D, O’Mullane J, Hill AD et al (2013) Who’s talking about breast cancer? Analysis of daily breast cancer posts on the Internet. Breast 22(1):24–27PubMedCrossRef
50.
Gardiner R (2008) The transition from ‘informed patient’ care to ‘patient informed’ care. Stud Health Technol Inf 137:241–256
51.
52.
Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Sordi S, Kothari A, Kovacs T, Lo Torto F, Cigna E, Calabrese C, Ribuffo D (2019) Evaluation of prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with TiLoop Bra mesh for breast reconstruction: a prospective study on long-term and patient-reported BREAST-Q outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(1):1e–9ePubMedCrossRef
53.
Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Lo Torto F, Barellini L, Sordi S, Gaggelli I, Roncella M, Calabrese C, Ribuffo D (2018) Subcutaneous expanders and synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction: long-term and patient reported BREAST-Q outcomes of a single center prospective study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​bjps.​2018.​12.​018 PubMedCrossRef
54.
Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS et al (2001) Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 285:2612–2621PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Quinn EM, Corrigan MA, McHugh SM, Murphy D, O’Mullane J, Hill AD et al (2012) Breast cancer information on the internet: analysis of accessibility and accuracy. Breast 21:514–517PubMedCrossRef
56.
Reichow B, Halpern JI, Steinhoff TB, Letsinger N, Naples A, Volkmar FR (2012) Characteristics and quality of autism websites. J Autism Dev Disord 42:1263–1274PubMedCrossRef
57.
Cattelani L, Polotto S, Arcuri MF, Pedrazzi G, Linguadoca C, Bonati E (2018) One-step prepectoral breast reconstruction with dermal matrix-covered implant compared to submuscular implantation: functional and cost evaluation. Clin Breast Cancer 18(4):e703–e711PubMedCrossRef
58.
Metadaten
Titel
The New Trend of Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Objective Evaluation of the Quality of Online Information for Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction
verfasst von
M. Marcasciano
J. Frattaroli
F. L. R. Mori
F. Lo Torto
P. Fioramonti
E. Cavalieri
J. Kaciulyte
M. Greco
D. Casella
D. Ribuffo
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01311-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 3/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

50 Shades of Red: The Predictive Value of Closed Suction Drains for the Detection of Postoperative Bleeding in Breast Surgery

Original Article

A Revision Mandibuloplasty: Causes, Indications, Surgical Methods and Treatment Outcomes

Original Article

The Relationship Between the Preoperative Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Septorhinoplasty Surgery

Innovative Techniques

Treating Tear Trough Deformity: Transconjunctival Blepharoplasty with Fat Pad Repositioning and Fixation in the Intranasal Mucosa—18 Years’ Experience

Original Article

Camouflage of the Nasal Dorsum in Thin-Skinned Patients with Diced Cartilage Combined with a New Cross-Linked Hyaluronan (NCH) Gel and Blood: A New Method

Original Article

Mastopexy Autoaugmentation by Using Vertical and Triangular Flaps of Mammary Parenchyma Through a Vertical Ice Cream Cone-Shaped Approach

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

16.04.2024 | HNO-Chirurgie | Nachrichten

HNO-Op. auch mit über 90?

16.04.2024 | DGIM 2024 | Nachrichten

Kein Abstrich bei chronischen Wunden ohne Entzündungszeichen!
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.