Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using chest wall perforator flaps: Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of the percentage of breast volume excised and changes over time in flap volume

Breast Reconstruction- Developing a Volumetric Outcome Algorithm

Postoperative loss of breast volume represents a significant parameter for outcome evaluation of breast reconstruction. Breast volume broadly varies- depending of reconstruction method as well as surgical differences. A structural pattern of breast volume loss provides an essential parameter for preoperative design, helps to reduce postoperative breast asymmetry rate and thereby the need for reoperation. Therefore we hereby compare volume change of the three main reconstruction techniques: autologous flap-based, prosthesis-based and autologous fat transplantation breast reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .

Outcomes in volume replacement and volume displacement techniques in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Volume Replacement (VR-OBCS) and Volume Displacement Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery (VD-OBCS) are commonly used in the management of breast cancer. Many studies summarize the individual postoperative outcomes of these two procedures; however, there is a lack of research that compares outcomes of these approaches. This review summarizes the available VR and VD-OBCS literature in terms of oncological, cosmetic, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

An online literature search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL) was performed. Studies were included if they were written in English, had more than 10 adult (18+) female patients who underwent VR-OBCS or VD-OBCS, and reported at least one well-described oncological, clinical, or cosmetic outcome RESULTS: Thirty-three studies (26 VR-OBCS and 7 VD-OBCS) were included in this review; VR-OBCS studies were separated based on the use of latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps. Studies utilizing VR-OBCS with LD flaps reported the highest rate of all oncological outcomes; VR-OBCS studies without LD flaps reported the lowest. Rates of hematoma, seroma, and wound dehiscence were highest in VR-OBCS with LD flaps; partial flap loss and fat necrosis were highest in VR-OBCS without LD flaps and infection was highest in VD-OBCS studies. Inconsistencies in methodology (cosmetic outcome measures, outcome definitions, and time horizons) were found in all procedural groups.

CONCLUSION

Differences in outcomes for both OBCS procedures may be due to the heterogeneity of patient populations. "Doers" and "Users" of breast oncoplastic research should consider tumor size, laterality of tumor, breast size, measurement scales, and defensible time horizons before the application of a study's conclusions.