Elective Revisions after Breast Reconstruction: Results from the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium

Single-Stage Latissimus-Implant Breast Reconstruction Is Safe and Reliable: A Single Surgeon Series of 207 Flaps

BACKGROUND

The latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is a historical workhorse and contemporary salvage mainstay for breast reconstruction. There is still debate regarding timing and staging, with some authors advocating for staged reconstruction using tissue expanders. We present a single-surgeon experience with LDF breast reconstruction and compare the results of single-stage reconstruction versus staged approaches.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LDF breast reconstruction from 2008 to 2021 with a single surgeon (R.S.) were included. Charts were reviewed for demographics, indications, number and type of planned stages, and outcomes. Acute and chronic complications and revisions were compared between indication and staging groups.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients underwent LDF breast reconstruction, of which 111 flaps (53.1%) were bilateral. One hundred seventy-nine (85.6%) flaps were for primary reconstruction, and 30 (14.4%) flaps were for salvage of a previous breast reconstruction. Fourteen (6.7%) flaps were 1-stage LDF alone, 189 (90.4%) were 1-stage LDF with implant, 1 (0.5%) was 2-stage LDF with implant, and 5 (2.4%) were 2-stage LDF with tissue expander then implant. The mean follow-up was 44.9 months (range, 1-164 months). The most common complication was capsular contracture (29%). Overall complication rates were similar between primary and salvage reconstruction (35.8% vs 43.3%, P = 0.426), as was needed for revision (39.1% vs 40.0%, P = 0.926). There was a significant difference in complication rate (P = 0.021) but not revision rate (P = 0.133) between staging groups: 1-stage LDF alone, 7.1%, 14.3%; 1-stage LDF with implant, 40.2%, 41.8%; 2-stage LDF with implant, 0.0%, 0.0%; and 2-stage LDF with expander then implant, 0.0%, 20.0%. After removing capsular contracture, there was no difference in complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-staged LDF/implant reconstruction remains a safe and reliable surgical option for both primary and salvage breast reconstruction. High rates of capsular contracture should prompt the deployment of techniques to reduce its incidence.

Strategies for Prevention and Management of Postoperative Wounds and Scars Following Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: An Evidence-Based Review

GENERAL PURPOSE

To provide an evidence-based review of strategies for the prevention and management of wounds and postoperative scars following microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES

After participating in this educational activity, the participant will: 1. Identify operative considerations to promote wound healing in microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction. 2. Synthesize management strategies for major flap complications following microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction. 3. Explain features in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of scars following microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction.

Reconstructing Failure: Assessing Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Loss of Initial Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction failure, defined as the removal of a prosthetic device or flap without immediate replacement, can be traumatic. The authors describe the progression of tissue expander (TE), implant, or autologous breast reconstructive failure, and assess the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients who undergo additional reconstruction.

METHOD

Patients undergoing TE, implant, or autologous breast reconstruction between 2017 and 2022 were included, and patients with reconstructive failures were identified. Outcomes of interests included receipt of additional reconstruction and BREAST-Q scores 1 year after reconstructive failure. The authors also performed a propensity-matched analysis between patients who underwent secondary reconstruction and patients who had an uncomplicated reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 4258 patients receiving TEs, 4420 patients receiving implants, and 1545 patients receiving autologous breast reconstruction were included. Of patients who experienced reconstructive failures, 49.5% of patients with TEs, 4.8% of patients with implants, and 53.8% of patients with autologous reconstruction underwent secondary reconstruction. Age, psychiatric diagnosis, chemotherapy, radiation, and mastectomy type were associated with increased likelihood of secondary reconstruction. Between patients with and without additional reconstruction, higher Psychosocial Well-being trended toward the former cohort (61 [interquartile range, 56, 80] versus 50 [46, 65]; P = 0.085). Propensity-matched analysis demonstrated comparable PROs at 1 year after definite reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half of patients with reconstructive failure undergo an additional reconstruction. Patients who receive secondary reconstruction may have greater Psychosocial Well-being scores than those who do not and comparable PROs to those who had uncomplicated initial reconstruction. Surgeons should counsel patients with reconstructive failures that secondary reconstruction, although traumatizing, may be beneficial.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Trends in Ancillary Procedures Following Staged Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The shift from submuscular to prepectoral breast reconstruction has contributed to anecdotal changes in practices around ancillary procedures, such as autologous fat grafting and nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction. Although prepectoral reconstruction carries a lesser risk for muscular injury, postoperative pain and animation deformity, it is associated with decreased soft-tissue coverage and may necessitate ancillary procedures. This study examines operative trends following staged implant-based breast reconstruction to determine if tissue expander (TE) plane is associated with changes in the utilization of supplemental procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review using the TriNetX research database of deidentified patient data. Using Current Procedural Terminology codes, we identified adult female patients who underwent (1) mastectomy, (2) TE placement between 2013 and 2020, and (3) implant exchange. We grouped patients by year of TE placement and collected postimplant procedure characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 10,984 patients who underwent TE placement between 2013 and 2020 and subsequent implant exchange. There were 854 patients in the 2013 cohort and 1634 in the 2020 cohort. Fat grafting was 2.76-fold more prevalent in the 2020 cohort compared to the 2013 cohort (43.0% vs 15.6%, P < 0.001). Notably, the percentage of patients undergoing more than one round of fat grafting increased from 4.1% in the 2013 cohort to 11.9% in the 2020 cohort (P < 0.001). Fat grafting at the time of implant exchange was also more common in later cohorts, increasing from 6.6% of patients in the 2013 cohort to 32.0% in the 2020 cohort (P < 0.001). Over the study period, rates of NAC reconstruction were observed to decrease. A total of 10.3% of patients in the 2020 cohort underwent NAC reconstruction compared to 24.6% in the 2013 cohort (P < 0.001). Nipple tattooing procedures were also performed less frequently in recent cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In more recent cohorts, procedures aimed at correcting contour irregularities and rippling, specifically autologous fat grafting, have become more common. In contrast, the rates of NAC reconstruction and nipple tattooing have decreased, possibly because of challenges related to thin mastectomy skin flaps and limited soft-tissue coverage, which are more common in prepectoral reconstruction.

A Novel Fat-Augmented Omentum-Based Construct Is a Cost-Effective Alternative for Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Background/Objectives: The omental fat-augmented free flap (O-FAFF) is a novel technique for autologous breast reconstruction in patients who cannot use or who elect not to use more traditional donor sites. While the clinical outcomes of O-FAFF have been well studied, associated costs and resource utilization have not yet been investigated. The O-FAFF technique involves the use of an acellular dermal matrix and a two-team approach for laparoscopic harvest of the omentum, thereby increasing surgical and materials costs. This study compares the longitudinal cost-effectiveness study of O-FAFF breast reconstruction compared to reconstruction using implants or abdominal donor sites (deep inferior epigastric artery flap or transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap). Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis compared O-FAFF to abdominal free flap and implant-based reconstruction in adults. Markov cohort modeling was used to study cost-effectiveness from the payer perspective. Results: Compared to implant-based reconstruction, the incremental cost of O-FAFF reconstruction was USD 9227 and the incremental gain in breast quality-adjusted life-year (B-QALY) was 0.95, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 9712.64/B-QALY gained, which is well under the acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold of USD 50,000 per B-QALY. Compared to abdominal flap reconstruction, O-FAFF reconstruction was associated with an incremental decrease in direct costs of USD 1410.10 and an incremental gain in B-QALYs of 0.36 and was thus the dominant strategy. Conclusions: The O-FAFF breast reconstruction technique is a cost-effective alternative to more traditional methods of breast reconstruction, including abdominal free flap techniques and implant-based reconstruction. As such, the O-FAFF technique represents an important novel modality for primary autologous reconstruction.

Nipple Preserving Wise-Pattern Mastopexy Following Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: Description of the Surgical Technique and Clinical Results

Breast revision surgery is often necessary in patients following postmastectomy breast reconstruction with free autologous flaps for aesthetic improvement. Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy continue to be expanded oncologically. However, revision techniques for aesthetic concerns following breast reconstruction are underreported in the literature. Therefore, we describe a mastopexy technique following deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy to correct ptosis and reshape the breast. The blood supply of the nipple-areolar-complex is through the microvasculature of the DIEP flap and subdermal plexus. We report three patients who underwent nipple preserving Wise-pattern mastopexy following DIEP flap breast reconstruction.

Simultaneous Symmetrizing Surgery on the Contralateral Breast in Unilateral Autologous Breast Reconstruction Is Cost-Effective

BACKGROUND

 Simultaneous symmetrizing surgery (SSS) at the time of unilateral free flap reconstruction has been described as a method to facilitate single-stage breast reconstruction. However, the impact on cost and number of additional procedures is not well described.

METHODS

 Patients with unilateral free flap reconstruction were identified in national administrative data from 2017 to 2021 and followed for one year. Patients were stratified by immediate and delayed reconstruction, then further stratified into groups with and without SSS. Thirty-day complications included transfusion, wound dehiscence, surgical site infection, hematoma/seroma, and thromboembolism. The costs of initial hospitalization and subsequent surgeries were determined. Deferred symmetrizing surgeries within one year were identified. Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests and Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

 A total of 1,136 patients were identified, out of which 638 were delayed reconstructions: 75 with SSS and 563 without. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics or 30-day complications. Within one year of index reconstruction, fewer patients with SSS underwent revision surgery (29% vs. 51%, [p = 0.001]) or at least one additional procedure (36% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). Patients with SSS had lower total costs ($35,897 vs. $50,521, p = 0.005). There were 498 immediate reconstructions: 63 with SSS and 435 without. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics, 30-day complications, subsequent surgeries, or total costs.

CONCLUSION

 Symmetrizing procedures at the time of unilateral reconstruction may decrease the cost and number of subsequent surgeries without increasing complications.

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.

Satisfaction with Breasts following Autologous Reconstruction: Assessing Associated Factors and the Impact of Revisions

BACKGROUND

Autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) may confer higher patient-reported outcomes than implant breast reconstruction, but an in-depth examination of factors associated with satisfaction after ABR is lacking. The authors aimed to determine independent predictors of 1-year satisfaction with breasts after ABR and assess the importance of elective procedures on satisfaction.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent abdominally based ABR between 2010 and 2021 and completed the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breasts module at 1 year was performed. Elective procedures consisted of breast revision and nipple-areola complex reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 959 patients were included. Satisfaction with Breasts score improved from 53 (interquartile range [IQR], 44 to 64) preoperatively to 64 (IQR, 53 to 78) at 1 year postoperatively ( P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with decreased postoperative score included lower preoperative scores (β = 0.19 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.31]; P = 0.001), older age (β = -0.17 [95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01]; P = 0.042), Asian race (versus White, β = -6.7 [95% CI, -12 to -1.7]; P = 0.008), and a history of psychiatric diagnoses (β = -3.4 [95% CI, -6.2 to -0.66]; P = 0.015). Patients who received radiation therapy (β = -5.6 [95% CI, -9.0 to -2.3]; P = 0.001) or had mastectomy skin flap/nipple necrosis (β = -3.8 [95% CI, -7.6 to -0.06]; P = 0.046) also had significantly decreased scores. Satisfaction with Breasts scores improved significantly after breast revision procedures (from 54 [IQR, 42 to 65] to 65 [IQR, 54 to 78]; P < 0.001), and nipple-areola complex reconstruction (from 58 [IQR, 47 to 71] to 67 [IQR, 57 to 82]; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple independent patient and treatment level factors are associated with lower 1-year Satisfaction with Breasts scores following ABR. Elective procedures have the potential to improve satisfaction. Understanding these findings is imperative for optimizing clinical decision-making and managing expectations.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Comparison of DIEP and PAP free flaps for breast reconstruction in the context of breast cancer: A retrospective study of 677 patients over 10 years

BACKGROUND

Profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap following cancer surgery has emerged as a relevant alternative for breast reconstruction but is mainly used in cases where the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap cannot be performed. The aim of this study was to compare the PAP and DIEP flaps' surgical and aesthetics outcomes in breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Women who underwent breast reconstruction by DIEP or PAP flap at the Plastic Surgery Department of Georges Pompidou European University Hospital, Paris, France, between January 2012 and December 2020 were included. Patient's demographic characteristics, type, laterality, and timing of reconstruction were recorded. Operative times, length of hospital stay, general complications, and surgical complications were compared. The number of late surgical reoperations, their timing relative to the initial reconstructive procedure, and their purpose were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 677 patients were included, 559 of whom received DIEP flaps and 118 received PAP flaps. PAP flap patients were significantly younger, thinner, and had a smaller initial bra cup size than those who received DIEP (p < 0.001) Operative time was similar for both groups (p = 0.074). There was no difference in the number of early post-operative reoperations (p > 0.554) or late revisions (p > 0.403) between DIEP or PAP.

CONCLUSION

Provided that the technical and human resources are available, PAP flap is a valid technique, without increased risk of surgical complications and reoperations, or lengthening of operative time. The PAP flap should be considered a primary therapeutic option and not as an alternative to the DIEP flap.

Revision Surgeries After Proton vs Photon Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves disease-free survival in breast cancer but reduces aesthetic satisfaction. Proton PMRT has gained popularity because it results in fewer systemic complications. There is a lack of data regarding revision surgeries for prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PP-IBBR) following radiation.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare revision surgeries in PP-IBBR with photon vs proton PMRT.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed that included breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and PP-IBBR with PMRT between January 2020 and October 2022. The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 1056.4 days (2.89 years). Revision surgeries evaluated were fat grafting, conversion to autologous flaps, implant replacement, implant removal, capsulectomy, and scar revision.

RESULTS

The 116 PP-IBBR subjects were divided into 2 cohorts, receiving either photon (75, 64.66%) or proton (41, 35.34%) radiation. Overall corrective surgeries were higher with photon therapy (27.5% overall; 32.4% photon vs 19.5% proton, P = .132). The odds of any revision surgery were nearly double with photon therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.98), and the conversion to an autologous flap was significantly more likely with photon therapy (OR = 4.55, P = .025). Multivariable analysis showed an increased tendency for photon therapy patients to require any revision surgeries (OR = 1.62, P = .359), autologous flaps (OR = 5.97, P = .049), fat grafting (OR = 1.52, P = .664), and scar revision (OR = 4.51, P = .273).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to proton therapy, traditional photon therapy has a higher conversion rate to autologous flaps with PP-IBBR. Photon therapy had higher rates of overall revision surgeries, but the difference was not statistically significant. Proton therapy is safer and requires fewer revision surgeries, warranting larger studies and broader utilization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 (THERAPEUTIC)

Secondary Revision after Breast Reconstruction with Free Abdominal Perforator Flap: Flap Liposuction and Inframammary Fold Reconstruction

Background

In breast reconstruction using the abdominal perforator flap, if the flap capacity is too large, secondary revision procedures can be performed to reduce flap volume and reconstruct the inframammary fold (IMF). We examined the various revision methods and cosmetic results.

Methods

This study included 28 patients who underwent secondary revision among 216 patients who had breast reconstruction using the abdominal perforator flap between April 2012 and March 2019. The revision method, removal ability, and the inferior breast point (IBP) were analyzed using medical records.

Results

Revision methods included incision resection in 4 cases, liposuction (LS) in 22 cases, LS and simultaneous IMF reconstruction in 2 cases, and post-LS IMF reconstruction in 1 case. The average LS amount was 317 mL (range, 100 --700 mL). In 22 patients who underwent LS, the difference in preoperative IBP was 1 cm or more in 19 (86.4%) cases and 1 cm or less in 3 (13.6%) cases. The difference in postoperative IBP was 1 cm or more in 12 (54.5%) cases and 1 cm or less in 10 (45.5%) cases. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that the cutoff LS amount for a postoperative IBP difference of 1 cm or less was 375 mL.

Conclusions

The IBP was increased due to the decrease in flap volume. Revisions were completed with no difference in the LS-only IBP, especially when the LS amount was less than 375 mL. If the removal of 375 mL or more is necessary, removal or reformation of the IMF can be considered. These findings can potentially guide the planning of surgical procedures.

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

No Skin Paddle, No Problem: Burying Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Flaps in the Immediate Setting is Safe in Select Patient Populations

BACKGROUND

 In appropriately selected patients, it may be possible to fully bury breast free flaps deep to the mastectomy skin flaps. Because this practice forgoes the incorporation of a monitoring skin paddle for the flap, and thus limits the ability for physical exam, it may be associated with an increased risk of flap loss or other perfusion-related complications, such as fat necrosis. We hypothesized that fully de-epithelialized breast free flaps were not associated with an increased complication rate and reduced the need for future revision surgery.

METHODS

 A single-institution retrospective review of 206 deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flaps in 142 patients was performed between June 2016 and September 2021. Flaps were grouped into buried or nonburied categories based on the absence or presence of a monitoring paddle. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed postoperatively using the BREAST-Q breast reconstruction module. Electronic medical record data included demographics, comorbidities, flap characteristics, complications, and revision surgery.

RESULTS

 The buried flap patients (N = 46) had a lower median body mass index (26.9 vs 30.3, p = 0.04) and a lower rate of hypertension (19.5 vs. 37.5%, p = 0.04) compared with nonburied flap patients (N = 160). Burying flaps was more likely to be adopted in skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (p = 0.001) and in an immediate or a delayed-immediate fashion (p = 0.009). There was one flap loss in the nonburied group; complication rates were similar. There was a significantly greater revision rate in the nonburied flap patients (92 vs. 70%; p = 0.002). Buried flap patients exhibited a greater satisfaction with breasts (84.5 ± 13.4 vs. 73.9 ± 21.4; p = 0.04) and sexual satisfaction (73.1 ± 22.4 vs. 53.7 ± 29.7; p = 0.01) compared with nonburied flap patients.

CONCLUSION

 Burying breast free flaps in appropriately selected patients does not appear to have a higher complication rate when compared with flaps with an externalized monitoring paddle. Furthermore, this modification may be associated with a better immediate aesthetic outcome and improved patient satisfaction, as evidenced by a lower rate of revision surgery and superior BREAST-Q scores among buried DIEP flaps.

Implants versus autologous tissue flaps for breast reconstruction following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Women who have a mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction may be offered different options for breast reconstruction, including use of implants or the woman's own tissue (autologous tissue flaps). The choice of technique depends on factors such as the woman's preferences, breast characteristics, preoperative imaging, comorbidities, smoking habits, prior chest or breast irradiation, and planned adjuvant therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of implants versus autologous tissue flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction on women's quality of life, satisfaction, and short- and long-term surgical complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries in July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared implant-based reconstruction with autologous tissue-based reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. The minimum eligible sample size was 100 participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data using standard Cochrane procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five non-randomised studies with 57,555 participants met our inclusion criteria. There were nine prospective cohort studies and 26 retrospective cohort studies. We judged 26 studies at serious overall risk of bias and the remaining studies at moderate overall risk of bias. Some studies measured quality of life and satisfaction using the BREAST-Q (scale of 0 to 100, higher is better). Implants may reduce postoperative psychosocial well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps (mean difference (MD) -4.26 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.91 to -3.61; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on postoperative physical well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.92 points, 95% CI -4.44 to 0.60; I² = 87%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce postoperative sexual well-being compared with autologous reconstruction (MD -6.63 points, 95% CI -7.55 to -5.72; I² = 0; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the breast, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -8.17 points, 95% CI -11.41 to -4.92; I² = 90%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to a woman's satisfaction with breast size, bra fit, appearance in the mirror (clothed or unclothed), and how the breast feels to touch. Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the reconstruction (MD -5.96 points, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.68; I² = 62%; 4 studies, 1196 participants; low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to whether the aesthetic outcome has met the woman's expectations, the impact surgery has had on her life, and whether she thinks she made the right decision to have the reconstruction. Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on the risk of short-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03; I² = 91%; 22 studies, 34,244 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may increase long-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.22; I² = 94%; 17 studies, 26,930 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may have little to no effect on the need for reintervention compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.68; I² = 93%; 15 studies, 14,171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce the duration of surgery compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -125.04 minutes, 95% CI -131.41 to -118.67; I² = 0; 2 studies, 836 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review show that autologous tissue-based reconstruction compared with implant-based reconstruction may improve participant-reported outcomes such as psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and satisfaction with the reconstruction. There is also very uncertain evidence to suggest that autologous tissue-based reconstruction increases satisfaction with the breast and reduces the risk of long-term complications compared with implants. Implant-based reconstruction may be a shorter procedure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Despite the growing demand for breast reconstruction, the best technique has not been adequately studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the evidence provided by non-randomised studies is often unsatisfactory. There is no superior breast reconstruction technique for all women. Future research should focus on the definition of decisional drivers to guide an evidence-based shared decision-making process in reconstructive breast surgery.

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy followed by mastectomy and breast reconstruction-A systematic review of clinical, oncological, reconstructive and aesthetic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Pre-operative radiotherapy (PRT) and pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) prior to mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for locally advanced breast cancer have the potential to reduce radiation late-effects and expedite oncologic treatment. Recent feasibility work indicates that PCRT is safe and technically possible. Here, we present a systematic review of currently available data on clinical, oncological, reconstructive and aesthetic outcomes.

METHODS

A prospectively registered search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), EMCARE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was performed in August 2023. Clinical, oncological, reconstructive and aesthetic outcomes were appraised with risk of bias (ROBINS-I) and methodological quality determined (STROBE checklist) for each study.

RESULTS

Twenty-two published articles (19 journal articles and 3 abstracts) were identified reporting the outcomes of 1258 patients with median follow-up between 19.0-212.4 months. Patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 20 studies. Rates of locoregional recurrence and overall survival ranged between 0-21.7% and 82.0%-98.3% respectively. Rates of flap loss or necrosis ranged from 0-7.6%. Rates of revisional procedures ranged between 1.9-35.3%. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 7 studies and were mostly 'good' or 'excellent'.

CONCLUSION

PRT and PCRT preceding mastectomy and breast reconstruction produce acceptable oncological outcomes with rates of surgical complication and reconstructive outcomes within normal limits, however, the majority of available studies are of low methodological quality and at high risk of bias. A pragmatic randomised trial comparing PRT versus PMRT in the setting of breast reconstruction is now urgently required to guide surgical practice.

From Tip of Brush to Tip of Knife: The Relationship Between Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction and the Classical Arts

Breast reconstruction is highly complex, requiring navigation of not only clinical and operative realities, but of patient expectations as well. The authors sought to identify historical art pieces that exhibit breast asymmetries and deformities for comparison with photographs of breast reconstruction patients seen at the clinic of the senior author (S.O.P.) to demonstrate that achievement of perfect breast cosmesis is challenging in both breast reconstruction and in the classical arts. Open access libraries and Creative Commons images were reviewed to identify appropriate works of art from various time periods and geographic locations. Following artwork selection, photographs of breast reconstruction patients were reviewed and paired with selected artworks exhibiting cosmetically similar breasts. A total of 8 pieces of selected historic art were found to have at least 1 matching patient photograph, with 9 correlative patient photographs ultimately chosen. Common breast asymmetries and deformities identified included ptosis, asymmetric chest wall placement, asymmetric nipple placement, and absence of the nipple. This review identified diverse artworks of varying styles spanning vast expanses of both geography and time that exhibited breast deformities and asymmetries commonly encountered in patients seeking revision of breast reconstruction. This underscores that creating the cosmetically ideal breast is difficult both in the operating room and the art studio. Importantly, the authors emphasized that the arts frequently celebrate that which is considered beautiful, although to the trained eye of a plastic surgeon that which is considered beautiful is often classified as dysmorphic or asymmetric.

A Single-center Comparison of Surgical Outcomes following Prepectoral and Subpectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction

Background

Prepectoral implant placement continues to gain widespread acceptance as a safe and effective option for breast reconstruction. Current literature demonstrates comparable rates of complications and revisions between prepectoral and subpectoral placement; however, these studies are underpowered and lack long-term follow-up.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent immediate two-staged tissue expander or direct-to-implant breast reconstruction at a single center from January 2017 to March 2021. Cases were divided into prepectoral and subpectoral cohorts. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, aesthetic deformities, and secondary revisions. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models were performed to compare the demographic characteristics and outcomes between the two cohorts.

Results

We identified 996 breasts (570 patients), which were divided into prepectoral (391 breasts) and subpectoral (605 breasts) cohorts. There was a higher rate of complications (P < 0.001) and aesthetic deformities (P = 0.02) with prepectoral breast reconstruction. Secondary revisions were comparable between the two cohorts. Multivariable regression analysis confirmed that prepectoral reconstruction was associated with an increased risk of complications (odds ratio 2.39, P < 0.001) and aesthetic deformities (odds ratio 1.62, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

This study evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing prepectoral or subpectoral breast reconstruction from a single center with long-term follow-up. Prepectoral placement was shown to have an inferior complication and aesthetic profile compared with subpectoral placement, with no difference in secondary revisions. These findings require validation with a well-designed randomized controlled trial to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Impact of post-operative infection on revision procedures in breast reconstruction: A marketscan database analysis

BACKGROUND

Esthetic complications, such as capsular contracture and soft-tissue contour defects, hinder the desired outcomes of breast reconstruction. As subclinical infection is a prevailing theory behind capsular contracture, we investigated the effects of post-operative infections on these issues and revision procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database study (2007-2021) on breast reconstruction patients from the MarketScan® Databases. Esthetic complications were defined by their associated revision procedures and queried via CPT codes. Severe capsular contracture (Grade 3-4) was defined as requiring capsulotomy or capsulectomy with implant removal or replacement. Moderate and severe soft-tissue defects were determined by the need for fat grafting or breast revision, respectively. Generalized linear models were used, adjusting for comorbidities and surgical factors (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

We analyzed the data on 62,510 eligible patients. Post-operative infections increased the odds of capsulotomy (OR 1.59, p < 0.001) and capsulectomy (OR 2.30, p < 0.001). They also raised the odds of breast revision for severe soft-tissue defects (OR 1.21, p < 0.001). There was no significant association between infections and fat grafting for moderate defects. Patients who had post-operative infections were also more likely to experience another infection after fat grafting (OR 3.39, p = 0.0018). In two-stage reconstruction, infection after tissue expander placement was associated with greater odds of infection after implant placement.

CONCLUSION

Post-operative infections increase the likelihood of developing severe soft-tissue defects and capsular contracture requiring surgical revision. Our data reinforce the role of infections in the pathophysiology of capsular contracture. Additionally, infections elevate the risk of subsequent infections after fat grafting for moderate defects, further increasing patient morbidity.

Revision Breast Reconstruction With Biologic or Synthetic Mesh: An Analysis of Postoperative Capsular Contracture Rates

Background

Both biologic and synthetic mesh have been found to reduce the risk of capsular contracture, yet there is limited data assessing the use of these scaffold materials in revision breast reconstruction.

Objectives

This investigation sought to assess the ability of either biologic or synthetic mesh to prevent capsular contracture in the revision breast reconstruction population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted of implant-based revision reconstructions performed by the senior author between 2008 and 2023. Patient demographics and outcomes were assessed, including the incidence of Baker Grade III or IV capsular contractures. Results were compared between biologic and synthetic mesh groups using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

Ninety-five breasts underwent revision reconstruction with 90 (94.7%) for correction of malposition, 4 (4.2%) for size change, and 1 (1.1%) for revision after additional oncologic breast surgery. Of these breasts, 26 (27.4%) used biologic mesh and 69 (72.6%) used synthetic mesh. Capsular contracture occurred in 1 (3.8%) biologic mesh breast and 4 (5.8%) synthetic mesh breasts. There was no significant difference in the incidence of capsular contracture between the 2 groups (P = 1.000). None of the recorded demographics were risk factors for capsular contracture, including the use of biologic or synthetic mesh (P = .801).

Conclusions

Both biologic and synthetic mesh are successful at preventing capsular contracture in patients undergoing implant-based revision reconstruction. This adds to the growing evidence that both scaffold materials can be used in complex revision breast reconstruction to aid in preventing capsular contracture.

Level of Evidence 4

Patient Preferences for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Importance

Up to 40% of women experience dissatisfaction after breast reconstruction due to unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with personal preferences. Identifying what attributes patients value when considering surgery could improve shared decision-making. Adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis can elicit individual-level treatment preferences.

Objectives

To identify which attributes of breast reconstruction are most important to women considering surgery and to describe how these attributes differ by those who prefer flap vs implant reconstruction.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, at Duke University and between June 1 and December 31, 2022, through the Love Research Army with ACBC analysis. Participants were 105 women at Duke University with a new diagnosis of or genetic predisposition to breast cancer who were considering mastectomy with reconstruction and 301 women with a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition as identified through the Love Research Army registry.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Relative importance scores, part-worth utility values, and maximum acceptable risks were estimated.

Results

Overall, 406 women (105 from Duke University [mean (SD) age, 46.3 (10.5) years] and 301 from the Love Research Army registry [mean (SD) age, 59.2 (11.9) years]) participated. The attribute considered most important was the risk of abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] relative importance [RI], 28% [11%]), followed by chance of major complications (RI, 25% [10%]), number of additional operations (RI, 23% [12%]), appearance of the breasts (RI, 13% [12%]), and recovery time (RI, 11% [7%]). Most participants (344 [85%]) preferred implant-based reconstruction; these participants cared most about abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] RI, 30% [11%]), followed by the risk of complications (mean [SD], RI, 26% [11%]) and additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 21% [12%]). In contrast, participants who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 31% [15%]), appearance of the breasts (mean [SD] RI, 27% [16%]), and risk of complications (mean [SD] RI, 18% [6%]). Factors independently associated with choosing flap reconstruction included being married (odds ratio [OR], 2.30 [95% CI, 1.04-5.08]; P = .04) and higher educational level (college education; OR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.01-5.86]; P = .048), while having an income level of greater than $75 000 was associated with a decreased likelihood of choosing the flap profile (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.97]; P = .01). Respondents who preferred flap appearance were willing to accept a mean (SD) increase of 14.9% (2.2%) chance of abdominal morbidity (n = 113) or 6.4% (4.8%) chance of complications (n = 115).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction. Future studies should assess how decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences can help tailor patient-physician discussions to focus preoperative counseling on factors that matter most to each patient and ultimately improve patient-centered care.

The Effects of High Deductible Health Plans on Breast Cancer Treatment and Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

High-deductible health plans (HDHP) have expanded rapidly creating the potential for substantially increased out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The associated financial strain has been associated with the decision to forego care, but the impact on patients undergoing breast cancer reconstruction is not known. We examined the impact of HDHPs vs. LDHPs and OOP maximums on breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and 2020, patients who had breast reconstruction by the 2 senior authors were retrospectively evaluated. Information on patient's insurance contract was collected. Criteria for HDHP and LDHP were defined following section 223(c)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. All aspects of cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and surgical procedures were reviewed.

RESULTS

About 507 patients (262 in LDHPs and 245 in HDHPs) were reviewed. Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to be enrolled in HDHPs (25.7% vs. 36.8%, P < .01). There was no significant difference in total operations, number of revisions, or length of reconstruction in days or calendar years. Additionally, no difference existed in the choice of autologous implant reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

The cost-sharing burden of HDHPs creates the potential for patients to forego care, and thus, effort should be directed toward increasing patient education concerning health plan benefits. Utilization of postdeductible spending, as well as resources of health savings accounts, may limit the adverse effects of HDHPs. This study also emphasizes the importance for providers to increase cost transparency.

Breast reconstruction with latissimus dorsi flap: a comprehensive review and case series

The latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) has gained popularity given its versatile nature and broad applicability in breast reconstruction. Its resurgence has been attributed to its ability to be enhanced using implant or high-volume fat grafting, rendering it a primary option for selected patients. The aim of this review is to tackle current indications and subjects of controversy regarding use of complete-autologous and implant-enhanced LDF in breast reconstruction. Also, a case-series showcasing the authors' experience with this versatile reconstructive option is presented. A search across Web of Science and PubMed MEDLINE from inception through January 3, 2023, was conducted. Articles reporting postoperative outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction with LDF were included. Regarding the case series, electronic medical records of patients who underwent total mastectomy and autologous breast reconstruction with LDF from January 2011 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Data on demographic and oncologic characteristics, and surgical characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Our review suggests that LDF is suitable for patients who lack alternative donor site, have a history of abdominoplasty or no access to microsurgery, smokers or obese. Latissimus dorsi (LD) harvesting has almost complete shoulder function recovery in the long-term. Thoracodorsal nerve division does not cause volume loss or animation deformity. Multisite multilayer fat grafting, beveling the edges of the skin paddle and fat, folding the LD muscle and plicating the paddle allow adequate projection and contour achievement. Our case-series included 234 reconstructions. Almost half of the patients had immediate fat transfer during reconstruction (51.3%). The rate of recipient site hematoma was 3.0%, seroma was 7.7%, wound disruption 32.1%, wound disruption events requiring unplanned procedures was 13.7%, and surgical site infection (SSI) was 12.4%. The LDF is reliable and safe for immediate or delayed breast reconstruction or salvage after reconstruction failure. Its versatility, reliable anatomy, easy dissection, and relative low complication rate have revived this modality as valuable opportunity for breast reconstruction in this era.

How Postoperative Infection Affects Reoperations after Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A National Claims Analysis of Abandonment of Reconstruction

Infection after implant-based breast reconstruction adversely affects surgical outcomes and increases healthcare utilization. This study aimed to quantify how postimplant breast reconstruction infections impact unplanned reoperations, hospital length of stay, and discontinuation of initially desired breast reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Optum's de-identifed Clinformatics Data Mart Database to analyze women undergoing implant breast reconstruction from 2003 to 2019. Unplanned reoperations were identified via Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Outcomes were analyzed via multivariate linear regression with Poisson distribution to determine statistical significance at P < 0.00625 (Bonferroni correction).

Results

In our national claims-based dataset, post-IBR infection rate was 8.53%. Subsequently, 31.2% patients had an implant removed, 6.9% had an implant replaced, 3.6% underwent autologous salvage, and 20.7% discontinued further reconstruction. Patients with a postoperative infection were significantly associated with increased incidence rate of total reoperations (IRR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.92-3.31; P < 0.001) and total hospital length of stay (IRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.48-1.63; P < 0.001). Postoperative infections were associated with significantly increased odds of abandoning reconstruction (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 0.081-0.11; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Unplanned reoperations impact patients and healthcare systems. This national, claims-level study shows that post-IBR infection was associated with a 3.11× and 1.55× increase in the incidence rate of unplanned reoperations and length of stay. Post-IBR infection was associated with 2.92× increased odds of abandoning further reconstruction after implant removal.

Analysis of Breast Aesthetic Revision Procedures after Unilateral Abdominal-based Free-flap Breast Reconstruction: A Single-center Experience with 1251 Patients

Although autologous free-flap breast reconstruction is the most durable means of reconstruction, it is unclear how many additional operations are needed to optimize the aesthetic outcome of the reconstructed breast. The present study aimed to determine the average number of elective breast revision procedures performed for aesthetic reasons in patients undergoing unilateral autologous breast reconstruction and to analyze variables associated with undergoing additional procedures.

Methods

A retrospective review of all unilateral abdominal-based free-flap breast reconstructions performed from 2000 to 2014 was undertaken at a tertiary academic center.

Results

Overall, 1251 patients were included in the analysis. The average number of breast revision procedures was 1.1 ± 0.9, and 903 patients (72.2%) underwent at least one revision procedure. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that younger age, higher body mass index, and prior oncologic surgery on the reconstructed breast were factors associated with increased likelihood of undergoing a revision procedure. The probability of undergoing at least one revision increased by 4% with every 1-unit (kg/m²) increase in a patient's body mass index. Multiple Poisson regression modeling demonstrated that younger age, prior oncologic surgery on the reconstructed breast, and bipedicle flap reconstruction were significant factors associated with undergoing a greater number of revision procedures.

Conclusions

Most patients who undergo unilateral autologous breast reconstruction require at least one additional operation to optimize their breast aesthetic results. Young age and obesity increase the likelihood of undergoing additional operations. These findings can aid reconstructive microsurgeons in counseling patients and establishing patient expectations prior to their undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction.

Loss to follow-up after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

Loss to follow-up is inevitable in retrospective cohort studies, and patients are lost to follow-up after direct-to-implant reconstruction despite annual follow-up recommendation. We analyzed more than 500 patients to analyze the rate of loss to follow-up to plastic surgery and to investigate the factors affecting it. A retrospective review of patients who underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction between July 2008 and August 2016 was performed. Loss to follow-up to plastic surgery was defined as a difference of ≥24 months between the total and plastic surgery follow-up. The rate of loss to follow-up and associated factors including patients' demographics, surgery-related variables, oncological data, and early and late complications were analyzed. Of 631 patients who underwent direct-to-implant reconstruction, 551 patients continued visiting the hospital for breast cancer-related treatment. Of the 527 patients who were eligible for the study, 157 patients (29.8%) were lost to plastic surgery follow-up. Surgery-related variables, early complications, cancer stage, and adjuvant therapies were not significantly different. Younger age was significantly associated with loss to follow-up in univariate analysis. However, logistic regression revealed that a long total follow-up period, distant metastasis, and absence of late elective complications were significant factors contributing to follow-up loss. Late elective complications such as malposition, capsular contracture, and mastectomy flap thinning were more common in the follow-up group (48%) than in the loss to follow-up group (22%). Follow-up loss after direct-to-implant reconstruction was not associated with specific demographic or surgery-related variables, and postoperative courses significantly affected the loss to follow-up.

Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

With improvement in mastectomy skin flap viability and increasing recognition of animation deformity following sub-pectoral implant placement, there has been a transition toward pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. While studies have explored the cost effectiveness of implant-based breast reconstruction, few investigations have evaluated cost with respect to pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral breast reconstruction. A retrospective review of 548 patients who underwent mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction was performed from 2017 to 2020. The demographic and surgical characteristics of the pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral cohorts were well matched, except for reconstructive staging, as patients who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction were more likely to undergo single-stage instead of two-stage reconstruction. Comparison of institutional cost ratios by reconstructive technique revealed that the sub-pectoral approach was more costly (1.70 ± 0.44 vs 1.58 ± 0.31, p < 0.01). However, further stratification by laterality and reconstructive staging failed to demonstrate difference in cost by reconstructive technique. These results were confirmed by multivariable linear regression, which did not reveal reconstructive technique to be an independent variable for cost. This study suggests that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is a cost-effective alternative to sub-pectoral breast reconstruction and may confer cost benefit, as it is more strongly associated with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Acute health-related quality of life outcomes and systemic inflammatory markers following contemporary breast cancer surgery

Contemporary breast cancer surgical procedures vary greatly by the amount of tissue removed, anesthesia time, and reconstruction. Despite historical literature comparing the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after lumpectomy and mastectomy, HRQOL data are limited regarding contemporary surgical procedures. Further, biological processes (e.g., inflammation) associated with HRQOL outcomes have not been described. We conducted two studies to examine differences in post-operative physical and mental functioning, pain, fatigue, and systemic inflammatory markers including interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in women with early-stage breast cancer. Study 1 assessed women before and after surgery (n = 27) and Study 2 used a large cross-sectional sample (n = 240) to confirm findings from Study 1 and included a no-surgery comparison group. In Study 1, women who received mastectomy had lower physical functioning than lumpectomy (ps < 0.05), and those who received bilateral mastectomy had worse pain (p < 0.01) and fatigue (p = 0.029) than lumpectomy. Results were replicated in Study 2: mastectomy groups exhibited poorer physical functioning (ps < 0.01) and greater pain (ps < 0.001) than lumpectomy, and bilateral mastectomy was associated with worse fatigue (p < 0.05). Women who received bilateral mastectomy had higher levels of CRP than lumpectomy (p < 0.01) and higher TNF-α than the no-surgery group (p < 0.05). All surgery groups exhibited higher IL-6 than no-surgery (ps < 0.05). More extensive surgery is associated with poorer postoperative HRQOL. As compared to lumpectomy and no-surgery, mastectomy is associated with higher concentrations of systemic inflammatory markers.

Matched Preliminary Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes following Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Comparisons of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) involve unavoidable confounders, which are often adjusted for in post hoc regression analyses. This study compared patient-reported outcomes between ABR patients and IBR patients by using propensity score matching to control for confounding variables upfront.

METHODS

Propensity score matching analysis (2:1 nearest-neighbor matching with replacement) was performed for patients who underwent ABR or IBR without radiotherapy. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, history of psychiatric diagnosis, race-ethnicity, smoking status, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were BREAST-Q questionnaire scores for breast satisfaction and well-being.

RESULTS

Of the 2334 patients identified, 427 were included in the final analysis: 159 who underwent ABR and 268 who underwent IBR. The ABR group matched the IBR group in the selected characteristics. ABR patients did not differ significantly from IBR patients in breast satisfaction or well-being at either 1 or 2 years after reconstructive surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary analysis of immediate breast reconstruction patients not requiring radiation therapy with similar propensities for ABR or IBR suggests comparable levels of breast satisfaction and well-being within 2 years after reconstructive surgery. Further research is needed with larger sample sizes, statistical power, and follow-up to better understand patient reported outcomes in this population, as the current findings differ from studies where patients were not matched on baseline characteristics.

Implant-based versus Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.

Results

We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4-8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1-10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5-4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions.

Conclusions

Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.

Evaluation of the Number of Follow-up Surgical Procedures and Time Required for Delayed Breast Reconstruction by Clinical Risk Factors, Type of Oncological Therapy, and Reconstruction Approach

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstructive surgery is often a multistage process. The aim was to understand which factors might increase the number of follow-up surgeries and the length of time required to complete the reconstruction process.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was performed. Clinical data of 110 patients who underwent delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction with a 5-year examination period were reviewed retrospectively. Impact of clinical risk factors, oncological therapy, and reconstruction approach on the number of surgeries and the length of required time was analyzed. Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test were used.

RESULTS

In patients undergoing perioperative hormone therapy, an average of 2.9 surgeries and length of 20.2 months were required compared to 2.3 surgeries and 14.0 months in patients without hormone therapy (P = 0.003; P = 0.005). Previous abdominal surgery was associated with an increased number of breast reconstruction stages of 3.1 per patient (P = 0.056) and a longer reconstruction time of 23.0 months (P = 0.050). Patients undergoing nipple reconstruction or implant revision required an increased number of surgeries (P < 0.001; P = 0.012) and a longer reconstruction time (P = 0.002; P < 0.001). Contralateral breast surgery and flap revision were associated only with an increased number of surgeries (P < 0.001; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative hormone therapy was associated with a significantly higher number of surgeries and duration of time required to complete the reconstruction process. The highest increase in the number of surgeries was in patients with flap revision including anastomosis revision and necrectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Failed Breast Conservation Therapy Predicts Higher Frequency of Revision Surgery following Mastectomy with Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Breast conservation therapy remains the gold standard for women with localized breast cancer; however, some women may eventually undergo mastectomy with reconstruction. Little is understood regarding the risks of failed breast conservation therapy as they relate to postmastectomy reconstruction and whether this affects outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing breast reconstruction were extracted from a merged version of the MarketScan inpatient and outpatient databases from 2007 to 2016. Frequency of lumpectomy and radiation therapy were determined per reconstructive patient. Outcomes included inpatient complications and frequency of revision procedures. Regression models were adjusted for age, obesity, timing of reconstruction, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index.

RESULTS

Six thousand two hundred eighty-eight of 52,826 (11.9 percent) women underwent more than breast mass excisions before mastectomy with reconstruction. Of those, the mean number of excisions per woman was 1.67 ± 0.90. There were 3334 lumpectomy patients (53.0 percent) who completed radiation therapy. The mean number of revisions with breast conservation therapy was 1.5 versus 1.3 in the general cohort. On multivariable analysis, excision of breast mass alone was not associated with increased odds of inpatient complications (OR, 1.07; p = 0.363), nor was radiation therapy (OR, 0.89; p = 0.153). However, radiation therapy with or without excision of breast mass before mastectomy was a significant predictor of more frequent revision operations (p = 0.032). Excision of breast mass alone was not associated with an increased frequency of revision (p = 0.173).

CONCLUSIONS

History of radiation therapy in the setting of failed breast conservation therapy resulting in mastectomy with reconstruction was associated with an increased risk for revision. Patients should be counseled accordingly before breast conservation therapy in the event they may eventually undergo mastectomy with reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Breast Reconstruction: Necessity for Further Standardization of the Current Surgical Techniques Attempting to Facilitate Scientific Evaluation and Select Tailored Individualized Procedures Optimizing Patient Satisfaction

Background

Various breast cancer reconstruction methods and novel surgical techniques include autologous or allogenic procedures, which can increase patient's quality of life and provide options when dealing with patients seen as challenging clinical scenarios.

Summary

Our aim was to review the current literature and present published evidence on innovative standards in whole breast reconstruction. Advances in flap monitoring or newly published data regarding neurotization in breast reconstruction, arm lymphedema management, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma reconstruction treatment, and robotic surgery with regard to radiotherapy define innovative standards in the breast reconstruction setting. The role of meshes/acellular dermal matrix and fat grafting as well as optimal sequencing of postmastectomy radiotherapy in autologous and alloplastic breast reconstruction appear highly debatable also in expert panel meetings rendering further clinical research including RCTs imperative.

Key Messages

There is an abundance of novel available techniques, which mandate further standardization, facilitating scientific evaluation in an attempt to help surgeons select tailored procedures for each patient with the goal to promote informed decision-making in breast reconstruction.

Teaching Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction-A Retrospective Cohort Study

Microsurgical breast reconstruction demands the highest level of expertise in both reconstructive and aesthetic plastic surgery. Implementation of such a complex surgical procedure is generally associated with a learning curve defined by higher complication rates at the beginning. The aim of this study was to present an approach for teaching deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) and transverse upper gracilis (TUG) flap breast reconstruction, which can diminish complications and provide satisfying outcomes from the beginning. DIEP and TUG flap procedures for breast reconstruction were either performed by a senior surgeon (>200 DIEP/TUG, "no-training&nbsp;group"), or taught to one of five trainees (>80 breast surgeries; >50 free flaps) in a step-wise approach. The latter were either performed by the senior surgeon, and a trainee was assisting the surgery ("passive training"); by the trainee, and a senior surgeon was supervising ("active training"); or by the trainee without a senior surgeon ("after training"). Surgeries of each group were analyzed regarding OR-time, complications, and refinement procedures. A total of 95 DIEP and 93 TUG flaps were included into this study. Before the first DIEP/TUG flap without supervision, each trainee underwent a mean of 6.8 DIEP and 7.3 TUG training surgeries (p > 0.05). Outcome measures did not reveal any statistically significant differences (passive training/active training/after training/no-training: OR-time (min): DIEP: 331/351/338/304 (p > 0.05); TUG: 229/214/239/217 (p > 0.05); complications (n): DIEP: 6/13/16/11 (p > 0.05); TUG: 6/19/23/11 (p > 0.05); refinement procedures (n): DIEP:71/63/49/44 (p > 0.05); TUG: 65/41/36/56 (p > 0.05)), indicating safe and secure implementation of this step-wise training approach for microsurgical breast reconstruction in both aesthetic and reconstructive measures. Of note, despite being a perforator flap, DIEP flap required no more training than TUG flap, highlighting the importance of flap inset at the recipient site.

Secondary Surgeries After Oncoplastic Reduction Mammoplasty

PURPOSE

The oncoplastic reduction approach is a popular option for women with breast cancer and macromastia. Although the benefits of this approach are numerous, data on the need for secondary surgeries are limited. We evaluated the need for all secondary surgeries after oncoplastic reduction in an attempt to understand the incidence and indications.

METHODS

All patients with breast cancer who underwent an oncoplastic breast reduction at the time of the tumor resection were queried from a prospectively maintained database from 1998 to 2020 (n = 547) at a single institution. Secondary surgical procedures were defined as any unplanned return to the operating room. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed, and secondary surgeries were classified and evaluated. The timing and rates of secondary surgery were evaluated and compared with clinical variables.

RESULTS

There were 547 patients included in this series with a mean age of 55 years and body mass index of 33.5. Mean duration of follow-up was 3.8 years. One hundred and seventeen (21%) patients underwent 235 secondary surgeries, with an average of 1.4 operations until stable reconstruction was obtained. The reason for the secondary surgery was involved margins (7.5%), major complications (8.6%), aesthetic improvement (13.3%), and completion mastectomy (5.3%). Age 65 years and younger age was associated with any subsequent procedure (P = 0.023) and revision for cosmesis (P = 0.006). Patients with body mass index greater than 35 had increased secondary surgeries for operative complications (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary surgeries after oncoplastic breast reduction procedures are common. Management of margins and complications, such as hematoma and infection, are early indications, with aesthetic improvement, wound healing complications, fat necrosis, and recurrence being late reasons. The most common reason for reoperation is aesthetic improvement, especially in younger patients. Attention to surgical technique and patient selection will help minimize secondary surgeries for the nononcological reasons.

An 11-year Institutional Review of Nipple-Areolar Complex Tattooing for Breast Reconstruction: Identifying Risk Factors for Development of Tattoo-related Infectious Complications

BACKGROUND

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) tattooing remains a simple and safe procedure, which complements breast reconstruction. This study reviews 11 years of NAC tattooing to identify risk factors for tattoo-related complications.

METHODS

Patients undergoing NAC tattooing from January 2009 to March 2020 were reviewed. Patient information, reconstructive, and tattoo procedural details were analyzed. Tattoo-related breast infections, defined as breast redness requiring antibiotic therapy within 30 days after tattoo, were captured. Patients with reactive breast redness during the first 2 postprocedural days were excluded.

RESULTS

Overall, 539 patients (949 breasts) were included. Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) was performed in 73.6% of breasts (n = 698), whereas 26.4% (n = 251) underwent autologous-based reconstruction (ABR). Acellular-dermal matrix was used in 547 breasts (57.6%). There as a 13.7% (n = 130) of breasts that underwent pretattoo radiation. There was a 65.3% (n = 456) of breasts that underwent subpectoral IBR, whereas 34.7% (n = 242) breasts underwent prepectoral IBR. Tattoo-related infection rate was 2.2% (n = 21 breasts). Mean time to infection was 6.5 ± 5.3 days. There was a 85.7% (n = 18) of infections that occurred in IBR patients, one third occurring in radiated patients. There was a 95.2% (n = 20) of infections that were treated with oral antibiotics only. One explantation was performed after failed intravenous antibiotics. On multivariable analysis, radiation history (odds ratio, 4.1, P = 0.007) and prepectoral IBR (odds ratio, 2.8, P = 0.036) were independent predictors of tattoo-related infection. Among irradiated breasts, breasts with IBR had greater odds of developing tattoo-related infection versus breasts with ABR (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Although tattoo-related infections were uncommon, previous radiation and prepectoral IBR were both found to be independent predictors of tattoo-related breast infection. There is a role for preprocedural prophylactic antibiotics in these patients to mitigate infectious risk.

Unplanned reoperations after microsurgical breast reconstruction: Findings from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

While microsurgical breast reconstruction may require multiple planned operations, unplanned reoperations has not been studied. We sought to investigate unplanned reoperations after microsurgical breast reconstruction.

METHODS

We queried the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2005 and 2018. Current Procedural Terminology code 19364 was used to identify all patients with microsurgical breast reconstruction. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, preoperative laboratory results, and operative data were analyzed. The primary outcome measure was 30-day unplanned reoperation.

RESULTS

Of 8449 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 1021 required an unplanned reoperation (12.1%). These patients were more likely to be obese, smokers, hypertensive, on steroids preoperatively, needing concomitant mastectomy, and with prolonged operating room time >9 h (p < .05). Multivariable regression model revealed preoperative steroids intake (OR = 1.92, CI 1.09-3.38, p = .03), concomitant mastectomy (OR = 1.45, CI 1.23-1.71, p < .01), and operating room time >9 h (OR = 1.37, CI 1.16-1.62, p < .01) as independent risk factors. Mastectomy was found to be an independent risk factor for early reoperation, that is, ≤2 days (OR = 1.44, CI 1.14-1.82, p < .01), whereas obesity was an independent risk factor for three reoperations (OR = 3.92, CI 1.14-13.46, p = .03).

CONCLUSION

Unplanned reoperations within 30-days after microsurgical breast reconstruction are a significant problem. Mastectomy is an independent risk factor for early reoperation whereas obesity is an independent risk factor for multiple reoperations. Identification of such patients preoperatively may help microsurgeons improve patient safety and quality of care.

Effect of Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) is established practice. Existing evidence validating ADMs proposed advantages, including improved cosmetics and more single-stage IBBRs, is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether IBBR with ADM results in fewer reoperations and increased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of women with primary breast cancer who planned for mastectomy and immediate IBBR, with a 2-year follow-up for all participants. Participants were enrolled at 5 breast cancer units in Sweden and the United Kingdom between 2014 and May 2017. Exclusion criteria included previous radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed until August 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated to immediate IBBR with or without ADM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary trial end point was number of reoperations at 2 years. HRQoL, a secondary end point, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures using 3 instruments from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

From start of enrollment on April 24, 2014, to close of trial on May 10, 2017, a total of 135 women were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 50.4 [9.5] years); 64 were assigned to have an IBBR procedure with ADM and 65 to the control group who had IBBR without ADM. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome. Of 129 patients analyzed at 2-year follow-up, 44 of 64 (69%) had at least 1 surgical event in the ADM group vs 43 of 65 (66%) in the control group. In the ADM group, 31 patients (48%) had at least 1 reoperation on the ipsilateral side vs 35 (54%) in the control group. The overall number of reoperations on the ipsilateral side were 42 and 43 respectively. Within the follow-up time of 24 months, 9 patients (14%) in the ADM group had the implant removed compared with 7 (11%) in the control group. We found no significant mean differences in postoperative patient-reported HRQoL domains, including perception of body image (mean difference, 3; 99% CI, -11 to 17; P = .57) and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome (mean difference, 8; 99% CI, -6 to 20; P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Immediate IBBR with ADM did not yield fewer reoperations compared with conventional IBBR without ADM, nor was IBBR with ADM superior in terms of HRQoL or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes. Patients treated for breast cancer contemplating ADM-supported IBBR should be informed about the lack of evidence validating ADM's suggested benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061527.

Long-term outcomes of breast reconstruction and the need for revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction (BR) often forms part of a patient's breast cancer journey. Revision surgery may be required to maintain the integrity of a BR, although this is not commonly reported in the literature. Different reconstructive methods may have differing requirements for revision. It is important for patients and surgeons to understand the factors leading to the need for revision surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyses BRs performed by oncoplastic breast surgeons in public and private settings between 2005 and 2014, with follow-up until December 2018. Surgical and patient factors were examined, including types of BR, complications and reasons for revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 390 women with 540 reconstructions were included, with a median follow-up of 61 months. Twenty-eight percent (151/540) of reconstructions required at least one revision operation. Overall, implant-based reconstructions (direct-to-implant [DTI] and two-stage expander-implant) had a higher revision rate compared to pedicled flap reconstructions (odds ratio 1.91, 95% confidence interval 1.08, 3.38). DTI reconstructions had the highest odds, and pedicled flap without implants the lowest odds of requiring revision. Post-reconstruction radiotherapy increased the chance of revision surgery, while pre-reconstruction radiotherapy did not. Odds of revision were higher in implant-based reconstructions compared to pedicled flap reconstructions that had radiotherapy. Other factors increasing the rates of revision surgery were being a current smoker and post-operative infection.

CONCLUSION

Almost one-third of reconstructive patients require revision surgery. Autologous pedicled flap reconstructions have lower rates of revision compared to implant-based reconstructions. Radiotherapy increases the need for revision surgery, particularly in implant-based reconstructions.

Local Infiltration of Tranexamic Acid (TXA) in Liposuction: A Single-Surgeon Outcomes Analysis and Considerations for Minimizing Postoperative Donor Site Ecchymosis

BACKGROUND

Tranexamic acid (TXA) has gained increasing recognition in plastic surgery as a dependable adjunct capable of minimizing blood loss, ecchymosis, and edema. To date, there have been limited data on the utilization of TXA to mitigate liposuction donor site ecchymosis.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to investigate whether infiltration of TXA into liposuction donor sites safely reduces postoperative ecchymosis.

METHODS

A single-surgeon retrospective cohort study was performed to analyze patients undergoing autologous fat transfer for breast reconstruction between 2016 and 2019. Following lipoaspiration, patients in the intervention group received 75 mL of TXA (3 g in NaCl 0.9%) infiltrated into the liposuction donor sites, whereas the historical controls did not. Patient demographics, degree of ecchymosis, surgical complications, and thromboembolic events were examined. A blinded assessment of postoperative photographs of the donor sites was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 120 autologous fat grafting procedures were reviewed. Sixty patients received TXA, whereas 60 patients did not. Patient demographics and comorbidities were similar among the groups. No difference existed between groups regarding donor site locations, tumescent volume, lipoaspirate volume, or time to postoperative photograph. Ten blinded evaluators completed the assessment. The median bruising score of patients who received TXA was significantly lower than that of patients who did not (1.6/10 vs 2.3/10, P = 0.01). Postoperative complications were similar among the groups. Adverse effects of TXA were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received local infiltration of TXA into the liposuction donor sites were found to have less donor site ecchymosis than patients who did not. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Revision Rates in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Delayed-Immediate Autologous Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction in the prepectoral plane has recently fallen into favor. Minimizing the number of revisionary procedures after reconstruction is an important factor in improving patient care, but long-term studies on the effects of prepectoral reconstruction are limited. In this study, we compare the revision rates after delayed-immediate, autologous reconstruction between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions.

METHODS

Postoperative charts for all patients undergoing subpectoral or prepectoral delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed at our single tertiary-care institution between 2009 and 2018. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and oncologic history were recorded. Charts after second stage reconstruction were reviewed for up to eighteen months to determine if revisions were necessary. Data collected included the total number of surgeries performed, the average number of procedures performed during each surgery, and the type of revision that was performed. Statistical tests included the chi squared test, unpaired t-test, and logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Data from 89 patients with 125 breast reconstructions were collected. There was a 41.6% of these that were prepectoral reconstructions (P), and 58.4% were subpectoral reconstructions (S). For both groups, nipple sparing, followed by skin sparing mastectomies were most common. Mastectomy rates were not statistically different. Fewer breasts in the prepectoral cohort required any revisions (P, 21.2% vs S, 47.9%; P = 0.002). The subpectoral cohort had higher rates of soft tissue rearrangement (P, 7.7% vs S, 21.9%, P = 0.032), fat grafting (P, 9.6% vs S, 27.4%; P = 0.014), and nipple reconstruction (P: 5.8% vs 20.5%, P = 0.020). Mean follow-up time was not significantly different between patient groups (P, 290.5 days vs S, 375.0 days, P = 0.142). Subpectoral expander placement was found to be the only variable independently predictive of requiring 1 or more revision (P = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast reconstruction performed in the prepectoral plane is associated with lower overall rates of revisionary surgery. Rates of soft tissue rearrangement, fat grafting, and nipple reconstruction after autologous reconstruction trended higher in subpectoral reconstructions.

Breast Reconstruction Completion in the Obese: Does Reconstruction Technique Make a Difference in Its Achievement?

BACKGROUND

 Breast mound and nipple creation are the goals of the reconstructive process. Unlike in normal body mass index (BMI) women, breast reconstruction in the obese is associated with increased risk of perioperative complications. Our aim was to determine if reconstruction technique and the incidence of perioperative complications affect the achievement of reconstruction completion in the obese female.

METHODS

 Consecutive obese women (BMI ≥30) who underwent mastectomy and implant or autologous reconstruction were evaluated for the completion of breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

 Two hundred twenty-five women with 352 reconstructions were included. Seventy-four women underwent 111 autologous reconstructions and 151 women underwent 241 implant-based reconstructions. Chemotherapy, radiation, and delayed reconstruction timing was more common in the autologous patients. Major perioperative complications (requiring hospital readmission or unplanned surgery) occurred more frequently in the implant group (p ≤ 0.0001). Breast mounds were completed in >98% of autologous cases compared with 76% of implant cases (p ≤ 0.001). Nipple areolar complex (NAC) creation was completed in 57% of autologous patients and 33% of implant patients (p = 0.0009). The rate of successfully completing the breast mound and the NAC was higher in the autologous patient group (Mound odds ratio or OR 3.32, 95% confidence interval or CI 1.36-5.28 and NAC OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.50-4.69).

CONCLUSION

 Occurrence of a major complication in the implant group decreased the rate of reconstruction completion. Obese women who undergo autologous breast reconstruction are more likely to achieve breast reconstruction completion when compared with obese women who undergo implant-based breast reconstruction.

Long-term outcomes of latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstructions: A single-centre observational cohort study with up to 12 years of follow up

INTRODUCTION

The Latissimus Dorsi Myocutaneous Flap (LDMF) is used in post-mastectomy reconstruction. This study has evaluated long-term (up to 12 years) surgical- and patient-reported outcomes from LDMF procedures.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis of consecutive LDMF procedures in two UK hospitals, performed between 2006 and 2016. Case notes were reviewed for indications and outcomes. Patients were sent the BREAST-Q^Ⓡ survey by post. Outcomes, including surgical adverse events, revision, and implant loss rates, were correlated with patient risk factors.

RESULTS

A BREAST-Q was posted to 199/248 LDMF patients in 2018, (excluding 49 patients due to death, reduced cognitive function and incorrect coding) of whom 77 patients responded (38.7%). In 188 cases (representing 208 LDMFs), surgical outcomes were assessable. Median time since LDMF surgery was 7 years (range 2-12). Rates of acute implant loss were 9/139 (6.4%), flap necrosis 7/208 (3.4%), shoulder stiffness 4/208 (1.9%), chronic pain 24/208 (11.5%) and unplanned revision surgery 13/208 (7%). Median satisfaction levels were high with 78% of patients satisfied with treatment outcomes, 65% of patients satisfied with their breasts, 71% of patients satisfied psychosocially and 75% of patients satisfied with their chest. Receipt of radiotherapy was not associated with a higher risk of flap necrosis or capsule formation.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up of a large cohort of LDMF reconstruction patients show relatively low levels of adverse events and unplanned revision surgery and high patient satisfaction, which demonstrates how temporally robust the technique is. With the rise in popularity of acellular dermal matrix reconstructions, the LDMF has relatively fallen out of favour but its potential in primary and delayed reconstruction is demonstrated.

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.

Correction of Suboptimal Results in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common means to rebuild the breast following mastectomy. Although largely successful in restoring breast shape, suboptimal results may occur secondary to inadequate size or projection, malposition, rippling and contour irregularities, nipple malposition, capsular contracture, or implant rotation/flipping. This article reviews common strategies to improve implant reconstruction outcomes with revisional surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Patient-reported outcomes among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing breast conservation versus single or double mastectomy

PURPOSE

More women with unilateral early stage breast cancer are electing bilateral mastectomy (BM). Many cite anxiety, fear of recurrence, and certain aesthetic desires in their decision-making. Yet conflicting data exist regarding how these factors both inform and are modulated by medical decision-making, especially among women eligible for breast conservation (BCT). This study sought to assess the trajectories of women undergoing various surgical procedures for breast cancer.

METHODS

We performed a prospective longitudinal study of women with unilateral, non-hereditary breast cancer who underwent BCT, unilateral mastectomy (UM), or BM. Women completed surveys before surgery and at 1, 9, and 15 months postop. Surveys included questions about treatment preferences, decisional control, the HADS-A anxiety scale, the Fear of Relapse/Recurrence Scale (FRRS), and the BREAST-Q. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare outcomes between BCT, UM, and BM groups at each time point.

RESULTS

203 women were recruited and 177 (87.2%) completed 15-month follow-up. Of these, 101 (57.0%) underwent BCT, 33 (18.6%) underwent UM, and 43 (24.2%) underwent BM. Generalized anxiety and FRRS scores were similar between BCT, UM, and BM groups and declined uniformly after surgery. Although baseline breast satisfaction was similar between groups, at 15 months, it was significantly lower in BM patients than in BCT patients. Women who felt "very" confident and "very" informed before surgery had lower anxiety, lower fear of recurrence, better psychosocial well-being (PSWB), and greater breast satisfaction at 15 months.

CONCLUSION

While patients who undergo mastectomy have less long-term breast satisfaction, all patients can expect to experience similar improvements in anxiety and PSWB. Efforts should be made to ensure that patients are informed and confident regardless of which surgery is chosen, for this is the greatest predictor of better outcomes.