A Retrospective Cohort Study on Payor Type and the Effect on Revisions in Breast Reconstruction

Health Inequities in the Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcomes of Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review

Background: Plastic surgery is routinely sought after for the treatment of breast cancer, cleft lip and palate, and gender-affirming care. Inequities exist in plastic surgery in regard to the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes experienced by patients. The purpose of our scoping review was to (1) outline current literature addressing health inequities in plastic surgery and (2) draw attention to the gaps in this literature. Methods: This scoping review was developed following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. An initial search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases was performed to locate published articles on health inequities in plastic surgery. Articles had to address at least one of the National Institutes of Health's inequity groups we examined. Results: After reviewing full text, 153 studies were included in our final sample. We found race/ethnicity (94/153) and age (90/153) to be the 2 most commonly evaluated inequities in the scoping review. We discovered that patient populations that were older had public or no insurance and/or were in historically marginalized racial/ethnic groups were often less likely to be offered plastic surgery treatments. Conclusion: This scoping review describes the current literature on health inequities in plastic surgery and highlights gaps in the literature that warrant further research. We found significant findings regarding how vulnerable patient populations are affected by health inequities. Research should be conducted to investigate these inequities more thoroughly and discover the best solutions to bridge the gaps in providing equitable care.

Effects of Elective Revision after Breast Reconstruction on Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

 There has been increasing emphasis on patient-reported satisfaction as a measure of surgical outcomes. While previous research has investigated factors influencing patient satisfaction following breast reconstruction, there are few studies on how patient satisfaction is impacted by revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether elective revisions following breast reconstruction are significantly associated with changes in patient-reported outcomes and quality of life.

METHODS

 A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent immediate autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction at a single institution from 2015 to 2021. Patients were included if they had completed BREAST-Q preoperatively, post-initial reconstruction, and post-revision procedures. Patients were excluded if they received adjuvant radiation or if they had previously undergone breast reconstruction procedures. The primary outcome measures were BREAST-Q domains. Demographic, clinical, and surgical variables were also analyzed.

RESULTS

 Of the 123 patients included for analysis, 61 underwent autologous breast reconstruction and 62 underwent alloplastic reconstruction. Mean age was 49.31 ± 11.58 years and body mass index (BMI) was 29.55 ± 5.63 kg/m2. Forty-eight patients underwent no revision procedures and 75 patients underwent at least one revision. Between these two groups, there were no differences in age, BMI, complication rates, socioeconomic status, or preoperative BREAST-Q scores. Patients reported significantly higher satisfaction with outcome after their first revision compared with after initial reconstruction alone (p = 0.04). Autologous reconstruction patients who had at least one revision had significantly higher satisfaction with outcome (p = 0.02) and satisfaction with surgeon (p = 0.05) in the 2-year follow-up period compared with patients who had no revisions.

CONCLUSION

 Revision procedures following autologous breast reconstruction are associated with higher patient satisfaction with outcome. Further research should explore specific factors influencing patient decision-making regarding whether to undergo revisions.

Closing the Loop on Revision: The Impact of Emotional Well-being on Elective Revision After Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

A diagnosis of breast cancer has a significant impact on a patient's physical and emotional health. Breast reconstruction improves quality of life and self-esteem following mastectomy. However, many patients undergo additional elective revision procedures after reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between perioperative emotional well-being and elective revisions in breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent breast reconstruction with a single surgeon between January 2007 and December 2017. Revision procedures were defined as additional operations that fall outside the index reconstructive plan. Medical records were reviewed for a history of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and/or major depressive disorder. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with revision.

RESULTS

A total of 775 patients undergoing breast reconstruction were included, of whom 121 (15.6%) underwent elective revision. Overall, a history of any psychiatric history (P < .001), depression alone (P = .001%), and GAD and depression together (P = .003) were significantly associated with revision surgery. On multivariate logistic regression controlling for comorbidities and reconstruction modality, depression alone, and GAD and depression together were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of revision surgery (odds ratio, 3.20, P < .001; odds ratio, 2.63, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative emotional well-being and reconstruction modality impact the rate of secondary revision surgery. An understanding of the surgical and patient-related risk factors for revision can provide more informed patient-decision making and improve surgical planning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Analysis of Secondary Surgeries after Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Cancer Compared with Risk Reduction

Background:

This study sets out to compare reconstructive practice between patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for cancer and those who opted for risk reduction (RR), with an emphasis on examining patterns of secondary surgery.

Methods:

Data collection was performed for patients undergoing mastectomy and IBR at a teaching hospital breast unit (2013–2016).

Results:

In total, 299 patients underwent IBR (76% cancer versus 24% RR). Implant-based IBR rate was similar in both groups (58% cancer versus 63% RR). Reconstruction loss (5.3% cancer versus 4.2% RR) and complication (16% cancer versus 12.9% RR) rates were similar. Cancer patients were more likely to undergo secondary surgery (68.4% versus 56.3%; P = 0.025), including contralateral symmetrization (22.8% versus 0%) and conversion to autologous reconstruction (5.7% versus 1.4%). Secondary surgeries were mostly planned for cancer patients (72% planned versus 28% unplanned), with rates unaffected by adjuvant therapies. This distribution was different in RR patients (51.3% planned versus 48.7% unplanned). The commonest secondary procedure was lipomodeling (19.7% cancer versus 23.9% RR). For cancer patients, complications resulted in a significantly higher unplanned secondary surgery rate (82.5% versus 38.8%; P = 0.001) than patients without complications. This was not evident in the RR patients, where complications did not lead to a significantly higher unplanned surgery rate (58.9% versus 35.2%; P = 0.086).

Conclusions:

Most of the secondary surgeries were planned for cancer patients. However, complications led to a significantly higher rate of unplanned secondary surgery. Approximately 1 in 4 RR patients received unplanned secondary surgery, which may be driven by the desire to achieve an optimal aesthetic outcome.

Pure fat grafting for breast reconstruction: An alternative autologous breast reconstruction

Plastic surgeons offer various options for breast reconstruction based on patient preference, underlying disease, and comorbidities. An alternative form of breast reconstruction exists, which includes tissue expansion with tissue expander and subsequent fat grafting without the use of implant or flap. We retrospectively reviewed the breast cancer patients who underwent breast reconstruction at our institution to identify those with pure fat grafting. Demographic information, complications, operative details, and BREAST-Q scores were abstracted. From 2010-2015, 10 patients were identified. Patients with unilateral or bilateral mastectomy followed by pure fat grafting had a median of 3.5 or 4 sessions and a total median fat grafting volume of 380 or 974.5 cc, respectively. Patients were followed for 12 months, and no complications or breast cancer recurrences were noted. Finally, BREAST-Q scores at the 12-month follow-up were comparable to the preoperative values.

Assessing the Relationship between Anxiety and Revision Surgery following Autologous Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Revision procedures address contour irregularities and aesthetic concerns following autologous breast reconstruction. Mental health diagnoses are known to influence patient satisfaction with reconstruction. The authors aimed to identify oncologic, reconstructive, and demographic factors, including mental health diagnoses, associated with the number of revisions after autologous breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The medical records of all adult women undergoing abdominal free flap-based breast reconstruction at a major academic institution between 2011 and 2016 were reviewed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receipt of revisions. Negative binomial regression was used to identify characteristics associated with number of revisions received.

RESULTS

Of 272 patients identified, 55.2 percent received one revision, 23.2 percent received two revisions, and 10.3 percent received three or more revisions after autologous breast reconstruction (median, one; range, zero to five). After adjustment on multivariate analysis, anxiety (OR, 4.34; p = 0.016) and bilateral reconstruction (OR, 3.10; p = 0.017) were associated with receipt of any revisions; other oncologic and reconstructive factors including breast cancer stage, receipt of radiation therapy, and type or timing of free flap reconstruction were not associated with revisions. Using univariate negative binomial regression, anxiety (incidence rate ratio, 1.34; p = 0.006), Caucasian race (incidence rate ratio, 1.24; p = 0.02), and bilateral reconstruction (incidence rate ratio, 1.39; p = 0.04) were predictive of increased numbers of revisions received. After stepwise selection on multivariate analysis, anxiety remained the only significant predictor of increased numbers of revisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative anxiety significantly influences the number of revisions after autologous breast reconstruction. Further research is necessary to better understand the interplay among mental health, patient preference, and outcomes in breast reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.