Evaluation of Contralateral and Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Reconstruction Outcomes Comparing Alloplastic and Autologous Reconstruction

被引:12
作者
Bletsis, Patrick [1 ,2 ]
Bucknor, Alexandra [1 ]
Chattha, Anmol [1 ]
Kamali, Parisa [1 ,3 ]
Chen, Austin [1 ]
Flecha-Hirsch, Renata [1 ]
van der Lei, Berend [2 ]
Lee, Bernard T. [1 ]
Lin, Samuel J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Med Sch, Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, 110 Francis St,Suite 5A, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[2] Univ Groningen, Fac Med, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Div Plast Surg, Groningen, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
prophylactic mastectomy; breast reconstruction; autologous reconstruction; POSTMASTECTOMY BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; TISSUE EXPANDER; HIGH-RISK; SURGICAL COMPLICATIONS; FINANCIAL IMPACT; DIEP FLAPS; CANCER; WOMEN; EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1097/SAP.0000000000001358
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Over the last decade, there has been a 12% increase in prophylactic mastectomy (PM) per year. The aim of the study was to analyze complication rates and associated risk factors in patients undergoing PM and reconstruction. Methods: We reviewed patients undergoing PM (contralateral and bilateral) from 2010 to 2015 at a single academic institution. Data on patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were obtained. Postoperative complications were categorized into minor and major groups. We compared complication rates between autologous and alloplastic reconstruction. Patient characteristics were assessed using univariable and multivariable models. Results: Reconstruction after PM was performed on 390 breasts over the study period: 214 underwent autologous and 176 underwent alloplastic reconstruction. When comparing autologous and alloplastic reconstruction, significant differences were seen between the number of immediate breast reconstructions (96.3% vs 48.9%, P < 0.001, respectively) and 2-stage reconstructions (0.5% vs 44.9%, P < 0.001, respectively). The overall complication rate was 15.9%: 14.6% were minor complications, and 6.9% were major. Autologous reconstruction compared with alloplastic reconstruction had a lower incidence of minor complications (11.2% vs 18.8%, P = 0.036), breast infection (1.9% vs 13.1%, P < 0.001), and breast seroma (2.3% vs 7.4%, P = 0.018), respectively. Risk factors for complications included age (65), obesity, American Society of Anesthesiology class (3), smoking, hypertension, anxiety, tissue expander (with acellular dermal matrix), and implant-only reconstructions. Conclusion: In our study, autologous reconstruction appeared to have a better complication profile than alloplastic reconstruction. Clinicians may potentially use this information to guide preoperative counseling of women considering PM and reconstruction.
引用
收藏
页码:S144 / S149
页数:6
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]   Prophylactic Mastectomy: Is It Worth It? [J].
Abel de la Pena-Salcedo, Jose ;
Angel Soto-Miranda, Miguel ;
Fernando Lopez-Salguero, Jose .
AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2012, 36 (01) :140-148
[2]   A Nationwide Analysis of the Relationship between Hospital Volume and Outcome for Autologous Breast Reconstruction [J].
Albornoz, Claudia R. ;
Cordeiro, Peter G. ;
Hishon, Lauren ;
Mehrara, Babak J. ;
Pusic, Andrea L. ;
McCarthy, Colleen M. ;
Disa, Joseph J. ;
Matros, Evan .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2013, 132 (02) :192E-200E
[3]   A Paradigm Shift in US Breast Reconstruction: Increasing Implant Rates [J].
Albornoz, Claudia R. ;
Bach, Peter B. ;
Mehrara, Babak J. ;
Disa, Joseph J. ;
Pusic, Andrea L. ;
McCarthy, Colleen M. ;
Cordeiro, Peter G. ;
Matros, Evan .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2013, 131 (01) :15-23
[4]   Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: Two-year results of the Michigan breast reconstruction outcome study [J].
Alderman, AK ;
Wilkins, EG ;
Kim, HM ;
Lowery, JC .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2002, 109 (07) :2265-2274
[5]   Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan breast reconstruction outcomes study [J].
Alderman, Amy K. ;
Kuhn, Latoya E. ;
Lowery, Julie C. ;
Wilkins, Edwin G. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2007, 204 (01) :7-12
[6]   Financial Impact of Breast Reconstruction on an Academic Surgical Practice [J].
Alderman, Amy K. ;
Storey, Amy F. ;
Nair, Nita S. ;
Chung, Kevin C. .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2009, 123 (05) :1408-1413
[7]   Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Swedish Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer: A National Survey [J].
Arver, Brita ;
Isaksson, Karin ;
Atterhem, Hans ;
Baan, Annika ;
Bergkvist, Leif ;
Brandberg, Yvonne ;
Ehrencrona, Hans ;
Emanuelsson, Monica ;
Hellborg, Henrik ;
Henriksson, Karin ;
Karlsson, Per ;
Loman, Niklas ;
Lundberg, Jonas ;
Ringberg, Anita ;
Askmalm, Marie Stenmark ;
Wickman, Marie ;
Sandelin, Kerstin .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2011, 253 (06) :1147-1154
[8]  
Barton M.B., 2005, J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr, V2005, P61, DOI [10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi039, DOI 10.1093/JNCIMONOGRAPHS/LGI039]
[9]   Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States [J].
Birkmeyer, JD ;
Stukel, TA ;
Siewers, AE ;
Goodney, PP ;
Wennberg, DE ;
Lucas, FL .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2003, 349 (22) :2117-2127
[10]   The donor site morbidity of free DIEP flaps and free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction [J].
Blondeel, PN ;
Vanderstraeten, GG ;
Monstrey, SJ ;
VanLanduyt, K ;
Tonnard, P ;
Lysens, R ;
Boeckx, WD ;
Matton, G .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 1997, 50 (05) :322-330