http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Shane Tan (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Tan, Shane,Lim, Jane,Yek, Jacklyn,Ong, Wei Chen,Hing, Chor Hoong,Lim, Thiam Chye Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surge 2013 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.40 No.3
Background Our objective was to compare the complication rates of two common breast reconstruction techniques performed at our hospital and the cost-effectiveness for each test group. Methods All patients who underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap by the same surgeon were selected and matched according to age and mastectomy with or without axillary clearance. Patients from each resultant group were selected, with the patients matched chronologically. The remainder were matched for by co-morbidities. Sixteen patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flaps and 16 patients with DIEP flaps from 1999 to 2006 were accrued. The average total hospitalisation cost, length of hospitalisation, and complications in the 2 year duration after surgery for each group were compared. Results Complications arising from both the pedicled TRAM flaps and DIEP flaps included fat necrosis (TRAM, 3/16; DIEP, 4/16) and other minor complications (TRAM, 3/16; DIEP, 1/16). The mean hospital stay was 7.13 days (range, 4 to 12 days) for the pedicled TRAM group and 7.56 (range, 5 to 10 days) for the DIEP group. Neither the difference in complication rates nor in hospital stay duration were statistically significant. The total hospitalisation cost for the DIEP group was significantly higher than that of the pedicled TRAM group (P<0.001). Conclusions Based on our study, the pedicled TRAM flap remains a cost-effective technique in breast reconstruction when compared to the newer, more expensive and tedious DIEP flap.
-
Shane Tan,Jacklyn Yek,Wei Chen Ong,Chor Hoong Hing,Jane LIM,Thiam Chye LIM 대한성형외과학회 2013 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.40 No.3
Background Our objective was to compare the complication rates of two common breast reconstruction techniques performed at our hospital and the cost-effectiveness for each test group. Methods All patients who underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap by the same surgeon were selected and matched according to age and mastectomy with or without axillary clearance. Patients from each resultant group were selected, with the patients matched chronologically. The remainder were matched for by co-morbidities. Sixteen patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flaps and 16 patients with DIEP flaps from 1999to 2006 were accrued. The average total hospitalisation cost, length of hospitalisation, and complications in the 2 year duration after surgery for each group were compared. Results Complications arising from both the pedicled TRAM flaps and DIEP flaps included fat necrosis (TRAM, 3/16; DIEP, 4/16) and other minor complications (TRAM, 3/16; DIEP, 1/16). The mean hospital stay was 7.13 days (range, 4 to 12 days) for the pedicled TRAM group and 7.56 (range, 5 to 10 days) for the DIEP group. Neither the difference in complication rates nor in hospital stay duration were statistically significant. The total hospitalisation cost for the DIEP group was significantly higher than that of the pedicled TRAM group (P<0.001). Conclusions Based on our study, the pedicled TRAM flap remains a cost-effective technique in breast reconstruction when compared to the newer, more expensive and tedious DIEP flap
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
