The Impact of Combined Risk-Reducing Gynecological Surgeries on Outcomes in DIEP Flap and Tissue-Expander Breast Reconstruction

Postoperative Outcomes After Staged Versus Coordinated Breast Surgery and Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare postoperative complication rates and healthcare charges between patients who underwent coordinated versus staged breast surgery and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The MarketScan administrative database was used to identify adult female patients with invasive breast cancer or BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations who underwent BSO and breast surgery (lumpectomy or mastectomy with or without reconstruction) between 2010 and 2015. Patients were assigned to the coordinated group if a breast operation and BSO were performed simultaneously or assigned to the staged group if BSO was performed separately. Primary outcomes were (1) incidence of 90-day postoperative complications and (2) 2-year aggregate perioperative healthcare charges. Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and multivariable regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 4228 patients who underwent breast surgery and BSO, 412 (9.7%) were in the coordinated group and 3816 (90.3%) were in the staged group. The coordinated group had a higher incidence of postoperative complications (24.0% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.01), higher risk-adjusted odds of postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.76, p = 0.02], and similar aggregate healthcare charges before (median charges: $106,500 vs. $101,555, p = 0.96) and after risk-adjustment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.93-1.07; p = 0.95]. In a subgroup analysis, incidence of postoperative complications (12.9% for coordinated operations vs. 11.7% for staged operation, p = 0.73) was similar in patients whose breast operation was a lumpectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

While costs were similar, coordinating breast surgery with BSO was associated with more complications in patients who underwent mastectomy, but not in patients who underwent lumpectomy. These data should inform shared decision-making in high-risk patients.

Does concurrent gynaecological surgery affect infectious complications rate after mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction?

BACKGROUND

Women who undergo breast cancer surgery often have an indication for gynaecological procedure. The aim of our study was to compare infectious complications rate after mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction in patients with and without concurrent gynaecological procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical records of 159 consecutively operated patients after mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction. The patients were divided in 2 groups: 102 patients without (Group1) and 57 with (Group 2) concurrent gynaecological procedure. Infectious complications rates between the groups were compared using χ²-test. Logistic regression was performed to test for association of different variables with infectious complications.

RESULTS

There were 240 breast reconstructions performed. Median follow-up time was 297 days (10-1061 days). Mean patient age was 47.2 years (95% CI 32.8-65.9); 48.2 years (95% CI 46.1-50.3) in Group 1 and 45.8 years (95% CI 43.2-48.3) in Group 2; p = 0.002). Infectious complications rate was 17.6% (17.6% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.987), implant loss occurred in 5.7% (4.9% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.58). Obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30 kg/m²), age, previous breast conserving treatment (BCT) with radiotherapy (RT) were identified as risk factors for infectious complications in univariate analysis. Obesity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.319, 95% CI 1.085-10.157, p = 0.036) and BCT with RT (aOR 7.481, 95% CI 2.230-25.101, p = 0.001) were independently associated with infectious complications in multivariate model.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent gynaecological procedure for patients undergoing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction did not carry an increased risk for infectious complications.