Patient-reported outcome and cost implication of acute salvage of infected implant-based breast reconstruction with negative pressure wound therapy with Instillation (NPWTi) compared to standard care

One-Stage Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Salvage of Infected Tissue Expanders

BACKGROUND

Tissue expander-based breast reconstruction is associated with high rates of infectious complications, often leading to tissue expander explants and delays in receipt of definitive breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy. In this study, we describe a single-stage technique where deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps are used to salvage actively infected tissue expanders among patients originally planning for free flap reconstruction.

METHODS

In this technique, patients with tissue expander infections without systemic illness are maintained on oral antibiotics until the day of their DIEP flap surgery, at which time tissue expander explant is performed in conjunction with aggressive attempt at total capsulectomy and immediate DIEP flap reconstruction. Patients are maintained on 1-2 weeks of oral antibiotics tailored to culture data. Patients undergoing this immediate salvage protocol were retrospectively reviewed, and complications and length of stay were assessed.

RESULTS

In a retrospective series, a total of six consecutive patients with culture-proven tissue expander infections underwent tissue expander removal and DIEP flap reconstruction in a single stage and were maintained on 7-14 days of oral antibiotics postoperatively. Within this cohort, no surgical site infections, microvascular complications, partial flap losses, reoperations, or returns to the operating room were noted within a 90-day period.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a select cohort of patients, actively infected tissue expanders may be salvaged with free flap breast reconstruction in a single surgery with a low incidence of postoperative complications. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the influence of this treatment strategy on costs, number of surgeries, and dissatisfaction after staged breast reconstruction complicated by tissue expander infections.

Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: a 5-year scoping review

Breast reconstruction (BR) aims to improve the satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) of breast cancer survivors. Clinical studies using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can therefore provide relevant information to the patients and support decision-making. This scoping review was conducted to analyze recent trends in world regions, methods used, and factors investigated. The literature search was conducted in August 2022. Databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for relevant English-language studies published from 2017 to 2022. Studies involving women with breast cancer who underwent BR after mastectomy and investigated PROs after BR using BR-specific scales were included. Data on the country, publication year, study design, PRO measures (PROMs) used, time points of surveys, and research themes were collected. In total, 147 articles met the inclusion criteria. BREAST-Q was the most widely used, contributing to the increase in the number and diversification of studies in this area. Such research has been conducted mainly in North America and Europe and is still developing in Asia and other regions. The research themes involved a wide range of clinical and patient factors in addition to surgery, which could be influenced by research methods, time since surgery, and even cultural differences. Recent BR-specific PROMs have led to a worldwide development of research on factors that affect satisfaction and QOL after BR. PRO after BR may be influenced by local cultural and social features, and it would be necessary to accumulate data in each region to draw clinically useful conclusion.

Outcomes of Third-Attempt Breast Reconstruction following Infection-Associated Failure of Secondary Implant-Based Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common method of breast reconstruction in the United States. Despite ongoing advancements, periprosthetic infection is a serious problem that often results in device explantation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of third-attempt reconstruction in patients in whom secondary implant-based reconstruction failed because of infection.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy followed by IBR from 2000 to 2019. The outcomes of patients in whom secondary IBR failed because of infection and who ultimately underwent third-attempt breast reconstruction were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 6093 patients who underwent primary IBR, 13 patients had third-attempt breast reconstruction following infection-related explantation [median age, 52 years (interquartile range, 51 to 56 years); median body mass index, 23 kg/m 2 (interquartile range, 22 to 31 kg/m 2 ); median follow-up, 46 months (interquartile range, 16 to 62 months)]. Nine patients (70%) underwent IBR, two (15%) underwent IBR combined with pedicled latissimus dorsi flap, and two (15%) underwent abdominally based free tissue transfer. Third-attempt breast reconstruction was immediate in 46% of patients and delayed in 54%. The success rate was 78% in the IBR group, with a 23% complication rate. The success rate for autologous breast reconstruction was 100%, with one patient developing venous congestion necessitating return to the operating room.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-attempt breast reconstruction following infection-associated failed secondary IBR is a safe and feasible option. Although the risk of failure is higher than that for primary implant-based reconstruction, a third attempt after secondary IBR infection had a surprisingly high 78% success rate.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.