Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia

There is currently no consensus on the "gold standard" for Implant-based Breast reconstruction. In the United States, more than half of all breast reconstructions are performed using acellular dermal matrix (ADM). However, based on the findings of literature and systematic reviews, it can be cautiously said that synthetic meshes cause fewer complications with comparable aesthetic results and low cost. In our study, we propose using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh in implant-based breast reconstruction. This material has previously proven itself in cardiovascular, maxillofacial and neurosurgery, hernioplasty and as a suture material. Allogeneic dura mater, which has demonstrated comparable results in breast reconstruction with the literature, will be used as a comparison. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a porous, non-biodegradable, synthetic polytetrafluoroethylene mesh for implant-based breast reconstruction in patients diagnosed with breast cancer. An allogeneic dura mater technique will be used as a control.
Patients eligible for this study are classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as having stage 0-2 breast cancer.
The primary questions this study aims to answer are:
* What are the rates of major and minor complications associated with these techniques. Major complications will be defined as complications leading to reoperation.
* How effective are PTFE mesh and dura in maintaining the inframammary fold and implant projection after breast reconstruction?
* What is the patient satisfaction rate with the surgical results?
Patients will be randomly assigned to the study but will know which technique will be used in their particular case. Patients included in this study will undergo subcutaneous mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy using standard techniques with simultaneous implantation using PTFE mesh or allogeneic dura mater graft. In our opinion, the mesh and graft will stabilize the projections of the inframammary fold and breast implant.
After the surgery, all minor and major complications will be recorded for 6 months. For this, both physical examination and radiological diagnostic methods will be used, including breast ultrasound and MRI with contrast. Revision surgeries will be performed if necessary.
Projections of the inframammary fold and breast implant will also be measured in order to determine the effectiveness of the compared techniques.
Patients will be asked to complete the BREAST-Q Version 2.0© Reconstruction Module questionnaire to determine satisfaction with the surgical outcome.
The results of the study will help the professional community to determine the most effective method of Implant-based Breast reconstruction and will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Depending on the variant of the disease, patients are divided into 3 groups: A, B and C. Group A include patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22); CBFB-MYH11, group B - AML with t(8;21)(q22;q22.1); RUNX1-RUNX1T1, AML with normal karyotype with or without gene mutations (FLT3, NPM1, CEBPa) regardless of the allele ratio, and also AML with cytogenetic abnormalities not classified as those within groups A/C, group C - AML with myelodysplasia-related changes. Patients from group A receive treatment according to the scheme: 2 courses "7+3", 2 courses "FLAG", then - 6 courses of maintenance therapy according to the scheme "5+5". Patients from group B are given one course of "7+3". After that, their minimal residual disease (MRD) status is assessed. In case MRD negativity is achieved after the 1st course of "7 +3", randomization is carried out: branch 1 - therapy is similar to therapy for patients from group A (4 courses of induction and consolidation + 6 courses of maintenance chemotherapy (CT), allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is not planned), branch 2 - performing allo-HSCT should be done as soon as possible (before the start of maintenance CT is most desirable). If MRD negativity is not achieved after the 1st course of "7+3", the patient is given CT according to the standard program, followed by mandatory allo-HSCT. Patients from group C are treated either according to the "Aza-Ida-Ara-C" scheme, or according to the "Ven-DAC /AZA" scheme, followed by mandatory allo-HSCT.

Background: Thoracoscopic ablation is an effective treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation. Nowadays, 2 types of ablative devices are available in clinical practice allowing one to perform the thoracoscopic procedure - Medtronic and AtriCure. However, the contemporary clinical literature does not have enough data that would compare these two approaches.
Aims: to perform a comparative analysis of the short-term results of two minimally invasive strategies in thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Methods:
The retrospective study was performed in which included 232 patients underwent thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation in two clinical centers for the period from 2016 to August 2021. The patients were divided into 2 groups. The first group was represented by those patients to whom a Medtronic device was applied (n=140), the second group was treated with an AtriCure device (n=92). The patients were comparable in their age, gender, initial severity of the condition. The follow-up consisted of laboratory tests, chest Х-ray, electrocardiography, 24-hour Holter monitor, echocardiography. The structure and prevalence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, specifics of the postoperative period were compared between the two groups.