Chest Wall Reconstruction with Proline Mesh only or with Metallic Bar | ||
| Zagazig University Medical Journal | ||
| Article 38, Volume 30, Issue 1.5, August 2024, Pages 2321-2331 PDF (287.44 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/zumj.2023.247766.3001 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Mohamed Ashraf Refat Abd Elmonsef* 1; Mostafa Abdel Mohsen Elnewehy2; Abdallah Ibrahim Badr3; Ahmed Mahmoud Ahmed Shafeek2; Tamer Salem Mohamed Alawady2 | ||
| 1Cardiothoracic Surgery department, Faculty Of Medicine, Zagazig University | ||
| 2Department of Cardiothoracic surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt | ||
| 3cardiothoracic surgery,faculty of medicine ,zagazig university,sharkia,Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: In recent decades, two prominent methods for chest wall reconstruction have gained prominence: the use of proline mesh only and the combination of proline mesh with a metallic Bar. This work aimed for evaluation of comparative effectiveness of these two techniques, with a specific focus on their impact on wound infection rates and early postoperative outcomes. Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed at Cardio-thoracic Surgery Department at Zagazig University Hospitals on 18 patients with significant defects of the chest wall resulting from chest wall infection, post-traumatic injuries, or tumors requiring resection and subsequent reconstruction. The study involved two groups: Group A, Nine cases who underwent chest wall reconstruction using Proline Mesh only, and Group B, Nine cases who underwent chest wall reconstruction using combined Proline Mesh with a Metallic Bar. Results: The mean operation time was almost similar between the two groups. Intraoperative blood loss specific surgical procedures, such as partial sternotomy, diaphragm resection, pericardium resection, abdominal wall reconstruction, number of ribs resected, and site location of surgeries, did not exhibit statistically significant differences between both groups. Group B had a slightly more extended postoperative hospital stay, which was approaching significance. Post-operative complications did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion: Overall, we found no significant differences in patient characteristics, causes of admission, lesion characteristics, laboratory data, or most postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Our findings strongly advocate for adoption of Proline Mesh with Metallic Bar technique as highly effective and favorable choice in chest wall reconstruction. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Chest Wall Reconstruction; Proline Mesh; Metallic Bar | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 112 PDF Download: 55 |
||
