1
|
Escandón JM, Langstein HN, Christiano JG, Gooch JC, Prieto PA, Aristizábal A, Weiss A, Manrique OJ. Predictors for Prolonged TE-to-Implant Exchange During Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Single Institution Experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2024; 48:2088-2097. [PMID: 37563435 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-023-03536-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 07/19/2023] [Indexed: 08/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is limited evidence regarding the factors causing a prolonged time for tissue expander (TE) exchange into a definitive implant using two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). This study aimed to review our experience with IBBR, focusing on the time for TE-to-implant exchange and determining which factors cause a prolonged time for exchange. METHODS A retrospective review was performed to include women undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs after total mastectomy between January 2011 and May 2021. Reconstructions with irradiated TEs were excluded. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange longer than 232 days, which corresponds to the 75th percentile of the overall study group. RESULTS We included 442 reconstructions in our analysis. The median age for our series was 51 years and the median body mass index was 26.43-kg/m2. The median time for TE-to-implant exchange was 155 days [IQR, 107-232]. Cases that had a prolonged time for TE-to-implant exchange were defined as those undergoing exchange on postoperative day 232 or afterward. Diabetes (OR 4.05, p = 0.006), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.76, p = 0.006), an increased length of stay (OR 1.54, p = 0.013), and a lengthier time to complete outpatient expansions (OR 1.018, p < 0.001) were independently associated with a prolonged time for exchange. CONCLUSION As evident from our analysis, the time for exchange is highly heterogeneous among patients. Although several factors affect the timing for TE-to-implant exchange, efforts must be directed to finalize outpatient expansions as soon as possible to expedite the transition into a definitive implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III 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 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Escandón
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Howard N Langstein
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Jose G Christiano
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Jessica C Gooch
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Peter A Prieto
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Alejandra Aristizábal
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Anna Weiss
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Oscar J Manrique
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Escandón JM, Langstein HN, Christiano JG, Aristizábal A, Gooch JC, Weiss A, Manrique OJ. Latissimus dorsi flap with immediate fat transfer (LIFT) for autologous breast reconstruction: Single institution experience. Am J Surg 2024; 228:185-191. [PMID: 37743213 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Revised: 08/15/2023] [Accepted: 09/13/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few studies have reported the outcomes of LDF and immediate fat transfer (LIFT) during breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes and complications of LIFT and standard LDF (without immediate fat transfer) for breast reconstruction. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed charts from patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction after total mastectomy between 2011 and 2021. We compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between groups. RESULTS One hundred nineteen reconstructions (61.02%) were performed with LIFT, while seventy-six (38.98%) were performed with standard LDF. The median volume of total fat transferred during LIFT was 125-cc [110-170 cc]. The rates of donor site wound disruption (23.7% versus 12.6%, p = 0.044) were higher using the standard LDF compared to LIFT. Reconstructions performed with LIFT (HR 4.01, p < 0.001) were found to be associated with secondary fat grafting procedures. CONCLUSION LIFT is a safe procedure to enhance the volume of LDF in patients desiring autologous reconstruction without increasing recipient-site morbidity. On a time-to-event analysis, LIFT was associated with the requirement of further revision procedures using secondary fat grafting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Escandón
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Howard N Langstein
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Jose G Christiano
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Alejandra Aristizábal
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Jessica C Gooch
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Pluta Cancer Center, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Anna Weiss
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Pluta Cancer Center, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Oscar J Manrique
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Escandón JM, Aristizábal A, Langstein HN, Christiano JG, Gooch JC, Prieto PA, Skinner KA, Weiss A, Manrique OJ. Single versus Double Drainage for Immediate Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2024:10.1007/s00266-023-03800-6. [PMID: 38216789 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-023-03800-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2023] [Accepted: 12/06/2023] [Indexed: 01/14/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Reports evaluating plastic surgeons' practices indicate there are conflicting trends regarding the use of one or two drains for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Our study aimed to perform a matched cohort analysis to examine the postoperative outcomes and complications of immediate IBBR with tissue expander (TE) using two drains versus a single drain. METHODS A propensity score-matched analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching) of immediate reconstructions using two versus one drain was conducted. Female patients undergoing immediate two-stage IBBR with TEs between January 2011 and May 2021 were included. The covariables were as follows: BMI, mastectomy weight, lymph node surgery, TE surface, plane of reconstruction, use of acellular dermal matrix products, fluorescence imaging use, and intraoperative TE volume. RESULTS After matching using propensity scores, 192 reconstructions were included in the final analysis: 96 in each group. The rate of 30-day complications and overall complications during the first phase of IBBR were comparable between groups. The time for drain removal, time to initiate and finalize expansions, and time for TE-to-implant exchange were comparable between groups. Diabetes (OR 3.74, p = 0.025) and an increased estimated blood loss (OR 1.004, p = 0.01) were the only independent predictors for seroma formation. CONCLUSION In this matched cohort analysis evaluating the role of one versus two drains for two-stage IBBR, we found a comparable rate of complications and surgical outcomes between the two cohorts. Using two drains for immediate IBBR needs to be tailored depending on intraoperative findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III 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 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Escandón
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Alejandra Aristizábal
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Howard N Langstein
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Jose G Christiano
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Jessica C Gooch
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Peter A Prieto
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Kristin A Skinner
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Anna Weiss
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Oscar J Manrique
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Escandón JM, Aristizábal A, Christiano JG, Langstein HN, Manrique OJ. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: A propensity score-matched analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2023; 84:447-458. [PMID: 37413737 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2023] [Revised: 05/27/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are important differences between patients requiring sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and those who do not require axillary surgery at the time of breast reconstruction. We aimed to perform a propensity score-matched analysis to evaluate the impact of SLNB at the time of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) with tissue expanders compared with IBBR alone. METHODS Consecutive female patients undergoing total mastectomy and immediate two-stage IBBR between January 2011 and May 2021 were included. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching method without replacement was implemented with a caliper width of 0.01. Patients were matched for age, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, premastectomy radiotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the plane of prosthesis placement, mastectomy specimen weight, number of drains, and radiation of the expander. RESULTS We included 320 two-stage immediate IBBRs after propensity score matching, 160 reconstructions per group. Relevant surgical variables were comparable between groups. A higher rate of 30-day seroma formation was reported in immediate reconstructions that had SLNB at the time of mastectomy compared with reconstructions that did not have axillary surgery (16.3% versus 8.1%, p = 0.039). The time to complete outpatient expansions and time for expander-to-implant exchange were comparable between patients who underwent IBBRs with SLNB and those who did not. CONCLUSION SLNB performed at the time of mastectomy and IBBR with tissue expander increased the risk of seroma formation compared with reconstructions that did not have axillary surgery. The rate of infection, hematoma, and unplanned procedures to manage complications did not differ between groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Escandón
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Alejandra Aristizábal
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Jose G Christiano
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Howard N Langstein
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA
| | - Oscar J Manrique
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|