Comparison of Laser Versus Sclerotherapy in the Treatment of Lower Extremity Telangiectases: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND Lower extremity telangiectasia affects approximately 40% of women. The demand for aesthetic treatment of these veins continues to grow. Few studies have compared laser and sclerotherapy to treat leg telangiectasias. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of conventional sclerotherapy and neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser in the treatment of leg telangiectasias. METHODS AND MATERIALS Thirty women were enrolled in the study. One leg was randomly assigned laser treatment and the other sclerotherapy with 75% glucose solution. All patients were photographed before and after treatment. The applying physician and two independent observers rated photographic improvement of the treated areas. Complications and adverse effects were noted during follow-up. Patients answered a questionnaire that addressed pain, clearing of the vessels, and satisfaction with the results. RESULTS There was a significant difference between the modes of treatment regarding pain. Twelve patients using laser and 16 using sclerotherapy considered the clearing of the vessels to be good to excellent after three sessions of both laser and scleratherapy. Mean scores after photographic assessment were 7.9 for laser and 7.0 for sclerotherapy. CONCLUSION Lower extremity telangiectases may be treated equally well using Nd:YAG 1064-nm laser or conventional sclerotherapy.

Minimally invasive mastectomy: minimal incisions for better aesthetic quality of breast reconstruction

Background: Women with a family history of breast cancer who develop this disease are confronted with important situations regarding the increased risk for development of a second cancer in the contralateral breast. Prophylactic contralateral mastectomy (PCM) reduces by approximately 95% the risk for contralateral breast cancer. In spite of an increase in indications for PCM, the technical difficulties are many regarding the accomplishment of these procedures. The aim of this study is to describe the technique of mastectomy with preservation of the nipple-areola complex and a small incision, reducing surgical difficulties and complications attributed to this technique, thus allowing better aesthetic results in breast reconstruction. Methods: Forty-six patients with indications for PCM (28 bilateral) were submitted to minimally invasive mastectomy from March 2005 to November 2007. A small incision in the superior pole of the areola, sufficient to pass a liposuction 4 mm cannula is made. With the help of this cannula, detachment of the skin from the gland tissue is performed. Then a 3.5 to 4.5-cm long incision in the inframammary fold is made. Glandular detachment is completed using cautery in the sub,glandular portion and scissors in the upper breast portion cutting the restraints left by the cannula. The mammary gland tissue is removed through this incision. Results: Seventy-four breasts were operated on. The resected breast mass ranged from 285 g to 475 g. All 43 patients were reconstructed with prostheses. There was no necrosis of the nipple-areola complex or of the skin. Conclusions: This technique is an option for cases of patients with indications for PCM.

Evaluation of Aesthetic Abdominal Surgery Using a New Clinical Scale

Evaluation of outcomes after aesthetic surgery still is a challenge in plastic surgery. The evaluation frequently is based on subjective criteria. This study used a new clinical grading scale to evaluate aesthetic results for plastic surgeries to the abdomen. The method scores each of the following five parameters: volume of subcutaneous tissue, contour, excess of skin, aspect of the navel, and quality of the scar on the abdominal wall. The scale options are 0 (poor), 1 (fair), and 2 (good), and the total rate can range from 0 to 10. The study included 40 women ages 18-53 years. Of these 40 women, 20 underwent traditional abdominoplasty, and 20 had liposuction alone. Preoperatively and at least 1 year later, photographic results were analyzed and scored by three independent plastic surgeons. In the abdominoplasty group, the average grade rose from 2.9 +/- A 0.4 to 6.8 +/- A 0.4 postoperatively. In the liposuction group, the average grade was 5.3 +/- A 0.5 preoperatively and 7.7 +/- A 0.4 postoperatively. In both groups, the average postoperative grade was significantly higher than the preoperative grade. The mean scores for groups A and L were significantly different, demonstrating that the scale was sensitive in identifying different anatomic abnormalities in the abdomen. The rating scale used for the aesthetic evaluation of the abdomen was effective in the analysis of two different procedures: conventional abdominoplasty and liposuction. Abdominoplasty provided the greater gain according to a comparison of the pre- and postoperative scores.