about
Breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomies: predictors of complications and outcomesNo-drain DIEP Flap Donor-site Closure Using Barbed Progressive Tension Sutures.An Innovative Risk-Reducing Approach to Postmastectomy Radiation Delivery after Autologous Breast Reconstruction.Considering the Optimal Timing of Breast Reconstruction With Abdominal Flaps With Adjuvant Irradiation in 370 Consecutive Pedicled Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap and Free Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Performed in a ChineseAn investigation of the application of laser-assisted indocyanine green fluorescent dye angiography in pedicle transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous breast reconstruction.Salvage of intraoperative deep inferior epigastric perforator flap venous congestion with augmentation of venous outflow: flap morbidity and review of the literatureUnilateral and Bilateral Breast Reconstruction with Pedicled TRAM Flaps: An Outcomes Analysis of 188 Consecutive Patients.Intraoperative laser angiography using the SPY system: review of the literature and recommendations for useDirecting parthenogenetic stem cells differentiate into adipocytes for engineering injectable adipose tissue.Potential of the SPY intraoperative perfusion assessment system to reduce ischemic complications in immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction.Perfusion-related complications are similar for DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps harvested on medial or lateral deep inferior epigastric Artery branch perforators for breast reconstruction.The Type of Breast Reconstruction May Not Influence Patient Satisfaction in the Chinese Population: A Single Institutional ExperienceDeep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction without Microsurgery Fellowship Training.Satisfaction following Unilateral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of Pedicled TRAM and Free Abdominal Flaps.Evaluation of three-dimensional computed tomography processing for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction.Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Comparison of Four Abdominally Based Autologous Reconstruction Methods.Current surgery for breast cancer.The impact of perforator number on deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction.Autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction and coronary artery bypass grafting: an anatomical study and clinical implications.A retrospective review of the incidence of various complications in different delayed breast reconstruction methods.Donor site morbidity following DIEP flap for breast reconstruction in Asian patients: Is it different?Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life after Breast Reconstruction: Comparing 4 Different Methods of Reconstruction.Technique and outcomes of laparoscopic bulge repair after abdominal free flap reconstruction.Outcomes of one-side versus two-sides recipient vessels for bilateral breast reconstructions with bilateral DIEP flaps.Double transverse myocutaneous gracilis free flaps for unilateral breast reconstruction.Breast reconstruction with anatomical implants: A review of indications and techniques based on current literature.Technique for Minimizing Donor-site Morbidity after Pedicled TRAM-Flap Breast Reconstruction: Outcomes by a Single Surgeon's Experience.DIEP flap donor site versus elective abdominoplasty short-term complication rates: a meta-analysis.Three-dimensional computed tomographic angiography to predict weight and volume of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction.Update on breast reconstruction techniques and indications.Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Abdominally Based Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study.Postmastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes After Intraoperative Evaluation with Indocyanine Green Angiography Versus Clinical Assessment.The short-term psychological impact of complications after breast reconstruction.The effects of increased ischemic times on adipose tissue: a histopathologic study using the epigastric flap model in rats.Unplanned reoperations after microvascular free tissue transfer: An analysis of 2,244 patients using the american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program database.Optimising the preoperative planning of deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction.Prophylactic venous cannulation of the pedicled TRAM flap in breast reconstruction.Two modified surgical procedures for treating early stage breast cancer in China.Evaluation of skin viability in nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM).
P2860
Q26773601-EF18F72A-377C-4245-9B01-66D41BCB8ACAQ27317501-1400A163-FCA6-40BC-9DC3-C2968A75B94AQ33664741-4BFC5AA5-C6F1-4FCD-8376-33964B46F994Q33698384-E30DA4B6-CA08-4178-9D8B-59EF2712C8B3Q34179755-6B3FE555-5564-4A23-ACC8-346E5B284157Q34238978-767F6187-0CDB-4B59-AACF-99C81675AB12Q34284654-C9DFCAD1-2FFE-4636-A343-31B242B03EE7Q34536815-E37A0557-6420-45CD-B906-8C804A6C2BE3Q34838568-87262FDC-91CA-4527-9B1C-6941C5D7AC02Q34856077-13C28C7A-E9CD-4064-BD45-8C4E1AD2F537Q35580674-AA6A9116-A07E-4520-8F10-CFE00A96AF26Q35839828-A91FC47D-1F68-4E74-A235-3D9271B23DB4Q35924560-E426EE80-5C98-4373-9146-02DD3AA7F900Q36028351-5DD21618-0EFD-4441-AB23-0CADCE26A444Q37226547-676B18BD-C946-4DF2-A6FD-D845CE452781Q37340638-75C52255-5787-44A0-91E1-6C349B0EF4E6Q37486768-E31F275D-D353-4705-B55A-3F2845DB722CQ37559140-175E09B8-26C7-4120-8B9A-4D99F013AEC3Q37978189-EBA96793-00C0-4948-9485-4563CAFB17EAQ38584823-BA7BB4D5-55C2-4FCF-BC5C-E57F9B414B9EQ38586495-F21A33EB-4F76-43C3-A496-E0CCA23A8F04Q38663250-2DCAF870-75C6-47FE-97B6-848C33D1EB5BQ38704614-F04763EE-BF47-4630-846E-2F949B337245Q38816722-143DA4DC-2862-4A79-A6E9-FAD595993A97Q40841633-77E040B7-7454-4A8C-8921-4637C897195DQ41218201-B8A00B50-EFD0-45B4-AC35-9CD2F2FD5ACCQ42147771-7F41EB93-CBCD-4519-8DF4-743DBA4A0942Q43910365-88867DFE-E2E6-4F15-A123-B45D00738C72Q47365520-B9B5AAA5-9DDF-472A-9C88-9681FB90DF55Q48181293-D807C7A9-EF13-4CC9-AD09-EFE5D0B152E0Q50093832-F0075FBA-06F8-4DFC-A857-20A0ECEAD315Q50222853-C553A84B-C261-4ABD-B3A4-6FA20F06B11DQ50603898-05219387-8C64-48CE-BC73-F349D2E279E7Q50975849-A139051E-6D57-451D-99A6-FC7627C091C2Q51837649-0B9429D9-EC98-403D-8642-08D73E0E9BC3Q53064568-D1B26DD3-FF7F-4C94-B564-499D2E44CEE6Q53428448-55BCAD10-996C-44FD-8B91-8EA893B79CD4Q53675230-360D4278-5C11-4B0E-9F6A-F91E9E9D1F7DQ55710684-3DB1BC7B-E622-49C4-B4E7-68BFF21DAFDA
P2860
description
2006 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2006年の論文
@ja
2006年学术文章
@wuu
2006年学术文章
@zh
2006年学术文章
@zh-cn
2006年学术文章
@zh-hans
2006年学术文章
@zh-my
2006年学术文章
@zh-sg
2006年學術文章
@yue
2006年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes.
@en
DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes.
@nl
type
label
DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes.
@en
DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes.
@nl
prefLabel
DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes.
@en
DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes.
@nl
P2093
P1476
DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes.
@en
P2093
Barbara A Pockaj
Edward W Buchel
José L Hernández
Patrick B Garvey
Richard J Gray
Thomas D Samson
William J Casey
P304
1711-9; discussion 1720-1
P356
10.1097/01.PRS.0000210679.77449.7D
P407
P577
2006-05-01T00:00:00Z