| Objective:To investigate the effects of endoscopic assisted breast augmentation and traditional breast augmentation,compare the intraoperative indicators and postoperative results,the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions,analyse the clinical results of both,and provide theoretical and practical basis for the selection of breast augmentation surgery methods.Methods: Retrospective analysis of 120 female patients who underwent implant augmentation by Professor Wu Xinmin between December 2016 and December2021,grouped according to the different surgical methods,assessing Group A: 60 cases of traditional implant augmentation and Group B: 60 cases of endoscopy-assisted implant augmentation,comparing the intraoperative bleeding,duration of surgery,surgical incision and other indicators between the two,postoperative visual mapping score,breast augmentation effect grading,comparing the incidence of postoperative adverse effects such as subcutaneous haematoma,postoperative infection,contracture of the pericardium and fat hardening,and analysing the clinical outcomes of the two,and retaining pre-and postoperative breast photographs and data for archival use.Results:The incision groups of the 120 patients enrolled were all initially healed and followed up in the outpatient clinic for 6 months.After comparing the data of Group A and Group B by statistical methods,analysis of the data showed that endoscopic assisted breast augmentation has significant advantages over traditional implant augmentation.Conclusion: Traditional augmentation mammaplasty has long recovery time and more obvious scar;endoscopy has a good field of vision,treating blindness as direct vision,reducing the damage to the surrounding vascular tissues during surgery and smaller scar,which can shorten the operation time and faster postoperative recovery,better results and higher postoperative satisfaction,so endoscopy-assisted augmentation mammaplasty is more worth promoting. |
PDF Full Text Request