Long-term outcomes of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy: a population-based study

被引:18
|
作者
de Boniface, Jana [1 ,2 ]
Adam, Hannah Coude [1 ]
Frisell, Axel [1 ,3 ]
Oikonomou, Ira [4 ]
Ansarei, Dhirar [4 ]
Konstantinidou, Anna Ljung [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Yihang [1 ]
Alniaj, Basel Abo [5 ]
Wallmon, Paula [6 ]
Halle, Martin [1 ,7 ]
Johansson, Anna L., V [8 ,9 ]
Sackey, Helena [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Karolinska Inst, Dept Mol Med & Surg, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Capio St Gorans Hosp, Dept Surg, Breast Ctr, Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Dermatol & Venerol, Stockholm, Sweden
[4] South Gen Hosp, Dept Surg, Stockholm, Sweden
[5] Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Breast Endocrine Tumours & Sarcoma, Stockholm, Sweden
[6] Orebro Univ Hosp, Dept Surg, Orebro, Sweden
[7] Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Reconstruct Plast Surg, Stockholm, Sweden
[8] Karolinska Inst, Dept Med Epidemiol & Biostat, Stockholm, Sweden
[9] Canc Registry Norway, Oslo, Norway
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
MULTICENTER; MASTECTOMY;
D O I
10.1093/bjs/znac283
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Radiotherapy (RT) is a risk factor for impaired outcomes after implant-based immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Large studies including long-term follow-up are relatively scarce. The purpose of this analysis was to assess long-term effects of RT in implant-based IBR, distinguishing between implant removal because of postoperative complications versus patient preference. Methods This population-based cohort study included all patients with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR in Stockholm between 2005 and 2015. Data were collected through national registers and medical charts. The main endpoint was implant removal owing to postoperative complications (wound breakdown, infection, bleeding) or patient preference (dissatisfaction, pain, capsular contracture), with or without conversion to autologous reconstruction. Results Some 1749 implant-based IBRs in 1687 women were included. Median follow-up was 72 (range 1-198) months. Reconstructions were divided according to receipt of RT: No RT (n = 856, 48.9 per cent), adjuvant RT (n = 749, 42.8 per cent), and previous RT (n = 144, 8.2 per cent). Implant removal occurred after 266 reconstructions (15.2 per cent); 68 (7.9 per cent) in the no RT, 158 (21.1 per cent) in the adjuvant RT, and 40 (27.8 per cent) in the previous RT group. Implant removal was because of postoperative complications in 152 instances (57.1 per cent) and was most common in the first 3 years. This was especially observed in the previous RT group, where 15 of 23 implant removals occurred during the first 6 months. Implant removal owing to patient preference (114 of 266, 42.9 per cent) became more common with increasing follow-up. Conclusion Implant removal after implant-based IBR is significantly associated with RT. The reason for implant removal shifts over time from postoperative complications to patient preference. In this long-term follow-up of 1749 implant-based immediate breast reconstructions performed in Stockholm between 2005 and 2015, radiotherapy was a significant risk factor for implant removal. Implant removal because of postoperative complications was most common during the first 3 years, whereas implant removal owing to patient preference became increasingly common with increasing duration of follow-up. Lay Summary Irradiation of the chest wall after breast removal and implant placement (reconstruction) increases the risk of complications. These may lead to removal of the implant. Some women then choose a new breast reconstruction without an implant. The aim of this project was to find out how much irradiation affects complications after breast reconstruction using implants. This work used information on women who had a breast reconstruction with implants in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2005 to 2015. The main focus was on removal of the implant. This could be due to complications or patient preference. Implant removal could be with or without a new breast reconstruction. Of 1749 reconstructed breasts in 1687 women, 266 implants were removed. This was most often because of a complication, especially in the first years after surgery, but nearly as often due to patient wish. Implant removal owing to patient wish occurred later. Irradiation was a major factor increasing the risk of implant removal, together with, for example, smoking and obesity.
引用
收藏
页码:1107 / 1115
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Improving surgical efficiency of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy
    Kassandra Nealon
    Megan Rebello
    Nikhil Sobti
    Andrew Sherburne
    Dale Spracklin
    Eric C. Liao
    Michelle Specht
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2019, 176 : 159 - 164
  • [22] Discussion: The Goldilocks Procedure with and without Implant-Based Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Obese Patients: The Mayo Clinic Experience
    Nahabedian, Maurice Y.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2021, 148 (04) : 717 - 719
  • [23] Understanding the Evidence and Improving Outcomes with Implant-Based Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction
    Campbell, Chris A.
    Losken, Albert
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2021, 148 (03) : 437E - 450E
  • [24] A Systematic Review of Complications of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction with Prereconstruction and Postreconstruction Radiotherapy
    Momoh, Adeyiza O.
    Ahmed, Raouf
    Kelley, Brian P.
    Aliu, Oluseyi
    Kidwell, Kelley M.
    Kozlow, Jeffrey H.
    Chung, Kevin C.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 21 (01) : 118 - 124
  • [25] Outcomes of saline implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: 15-year follow-up results
    Min, Kyunghyun
    Jeon, Dong Nyeok
    Choi, Eun Jeong
    Lee, Taik Jong
    Eom, Jin Sup
    Han, Hyun Ho
    Kim, Eun Key
    ARCHIVES OF AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 26 (04): : 125 - 131
  • [26] The protocol for BROWSE-P (breast reconstruction outcomes with StratticeTM or ArtiaTM - pre-pectoral): a cohort study to assess long-term outcomes of immediate pre-pectoral implant based breast reconstruction with StratticeTM or ArtiaTM
    Johri, Goonj
    Wilson, Rebecca L.
    Barrett, Emma
    Murphy, John A.
    Dave, Rajiv
    Harvey, James R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY PROTOCOLS, 2024, 28 (04): : 125 - 130
  • [27] Time to reconsider the use of synthetic mesh in immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Impact of their use on short-term outcomes
    Leroy, Elea
    Poirier, Laura
    Planque, Helene
    Le Brun, Jean-Francois
    Gaichies, Leopold
    Francoise, Sandrine Martin
    Rouzier, Roman
    Harter, Valentin
    Dolivet, Enora
    EJSO, 2025, 51 (03):
  • [28] Comparison of survival outcomes of locally advanced breast cancer patients receiving post-mastectomy radiotherapy with and without immediate breast reconstruction: a population-based analysis
    Wu, San-Gang
    Zhang, Wen-Wen
    Sun, Jia-Yuan
    Lin, Qin
    He, Zhen-Yu
    CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, 2018, 10 : 1993 - 2002
  • [29] Comparison of Immediate Implant-Based versus Staged Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction Technique
    Bonomi, Stefano
    Settembrini, Fernanda
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2013, 131 (03) : 438E - 440E
  • [30] The Value of Synthetic and Biologic Meshes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction
    Weinzierl, Andrea
    Schmauss, Daniel
    Harder, Yves
    HANDCHIRURGIE MIKROCHIRURGIE PLASTISCHE CHIRURGIE, 2022, 54 (04) : 269 - 278