4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The Rib-Like Technique for Surgical Treatment of Sternal Tumors: Lessons Learned From 101 Consecutive Cases

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 1208-1215

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Sternal tumors represent a rare subgroup of chest wall neoplasms in which indication, surgical issues, and long-term results are rarely reported. Thus, in this study we reevaluated our experience in sternal replacement from a series of 101 consecutive cases during the last 30 years. Methods. Clinical records of patients who underwent sternal resection between January 1980 and December 2008 were reviewed. The technique of reconstruction after sternectomy varied over time, including mesh replacement in 52 patients (group A), rigid prosthesis in 27 patients (group B), and the rib-like technique, a semirigid tridimensional prosthesis reproducing the shape of native ribs, in 22 patients (group C). Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed. Results. Of 101 patients, 42 underwent resection for primary chest wall tumors, 30 for breast cancer, 15 for locally advanced tumors, 11 for metastatic disease, and 3 for benign disease. One patient died postoperatively. The overall major complications rate was similar between groups. Local infection required prosthetic removal in 7 patients of groups A and B (9%). No infection occurred in group C (p = 0.02). Median survival exceeded 60 months for primary sternal tumors and 22 months for other cancer (p = 0.01). The worst survival was recorded in radioinduced sarcoma (17 months) and in patients who underwent previous resection before salvage sternectomy (18 months). Conclusions. Results from this study showed that an adequate sternal resection should be done at the first operation and that improving prosthetic integration with surrounding tissues may reduce the local complication rate. (Ann Thorac Surg 2011;92:1208-16) (C) 2011 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据