Cargando…

Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort

BACKGROUND: Women considering immediate breast reconstruction require high-quality information about the likely need for secondary reconstruction and the long-term risk of revisional surgery to make fully informed decisions about different reconstructive options. Such data are currently lacking. Thi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnson, Leigh, White, Paul, Holcombe, Chris, O’Donoghue, Joe, Jeevan, Ranjeet, Browne, John, Fairbrother, Patricia, MacKenzie, Mairead, Gulliver-Clarke, Carmel, Mohiuddin, Syed, Hollingworth, Will, Potter, Shelley
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10364508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36998148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad050
_version_ 1785076858508804096
author Johnson, Leigh
White, Paul
Holcombe, Chris
O’Donoghue, Joe
Jeevan, Ranjeet
Browne, John
Fairbrother, Patricia
MacKenzie, Mairead
Gulliver-Clarke, Carmel
Mohiuddin, Syed
Hollingworth, Will
Potter, Shelley
author_facet Johnson, Leigh
White, Paul
Holcombe, Chris
O’Donoghue, Joe
Jeevan, Ranjeet
Browne, John
Fairbrother, Patricia
MacKenzie, Mairead
Gulliver-Clarke, Carmel
Mohiuddin, Syed
Hollingworth, Will
Potter, Shelley
author_sort Johnson, Leigh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Women considering immediate breast reconstruction require high-quality information about the likely need for secondary reconstruction and the long-term risk of revisional surgery to make fully informed decisions about different reconstructive options. Such data are currently lacking. This study aimed to explore the impact of reconstruction type on the number of revisions and secondary reconstructions performed 3, 5, and 8 years after immediate breast reconstruction in a large population-based cohort. METHODS: Women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ in England between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2015 were identified from National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics. Numbers of revisions and secondary reconstructions in women undergoing primary definitive immediate breast reconstruction were compared by procedure type at 3, 5, and 8 years after index surgery. RESULTS: Some 16 897 women underwent immediate breast reconstruction with at least 3 years’ follow-up. Of these, 14 069 had a definitive reconstruction with an implant only (5193), latissimus dorsi flap with (3110) or without (2373) an implant, or abdominal free flap (3393). Women undergoing implant-only reconstruction were more likely to require revision, with 69.5 per cent (747 of 1075) undergoing at least one revision by 8 years compared with 49.3 per cent (1568 of 3180) in other reconstruction groups. They were also more likely to undergo secondary reconstruction, with the proportion of women having further reconstructive procedures increasing over time: 12.8 per cent (663 of 5193) at 3 years, 14.3 per cent (535 of 3752) at 5 years, and 17.6 per cent (189 of 1075) at 8 years. CONCLUSION: Long-term rates of revisions and secondary reconstructions were considerably higher after primary implant-based reconstruction than autologous procedures. These results should be shared with patients to support informed decision-making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10364508
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103645082023-07-31 Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort Johnson, Leigh White, Paul Holcombe, Chris O’Donoghue, Joe Jeevan, Ranjeet Browne, John Fairbrother, Patricia MacKenzie, Mairead Gulliver-Clarke, Carmel Mohiuddin, Syed Hollingworth, Will Potter, Shelley Br J Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: Women considering immediate breast reconstruction require high-quality information about the likely need for secondary reconstruction and the long-term risk of revisional surgery to make fully informed decisions about different reconstructive options. Such data are currently lacking. This study aimed to explore the impact of reconstruction type on the number of revisions and secondary reconstructions performed 3, 5, and 8 years after immediate breast reconstruction in a large population-based cohort. METHODS: Women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ in England between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2015 were identified from National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics. Numbers of revisions and secondary reconstructions in women undergoing primary definitive immediate breast reconstruction were compared by procedure type at 3, 5, and 8 years after index surgery. RESULTS: Some 16 897 women underwent immediate breast reconstruction with at least 3 years’ follow-up. Of these, 14 069 had a definitive reconstruction with an implant only (5193), latissimus dorsi flap with (3110) or without (2373) an implant, or abdominal free flap (3393). Women undergoing implant-only reconstruction were more likely to require revision, with 69.5 per cent (747 of 1075) undergoing at least one revision by 8 years compared with 49.3 per cent (1568 of 3180) in other reconstruction groups. They were also more likely to undergo secondary reconstruction, with the proportion of women having further reconstructive procedures increasing over time: 12.8 per cent (663 of 5193) at 3 years, 14.3 per cent (535 of 3752) at 5 years, and 17.6 per cent (189 of 1075) at 8 years. CONCLUSION: Long-term rates of revisions and secondary reconstructions were considerably higher after primary implant-based reconstruction than autologous procedures. These results should be shared with patients to support informed decision-making. Oxford University Press 2023-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10364508/ /pubmed/36998148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad050 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Article
Johnson, Leigh
White, Paul
Holcombe, Chris
O’Donoghue, Joe
Jeevan, Ranjeet
Browne, John
Fairbrother, Patricia
MacKenzie, Mairead
Gulliver-Clarke, Carmel
Mohiuddin, Syed
Hollingworth, Will
Potter, Shelley
Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort
title Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort
title_full Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort
title_fullStr Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort
title_full_unstemmed Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort
title_short Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort
title_sort impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10364508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36998148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad050
work_keys_str_mv AT johnsonleigh impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT whitepaul impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT holcombechris impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT odonoghuejoe impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT jeevanranjeet impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT brownejohn impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT fairbrotherpatricia impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT mackenziemairead impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT gulliverclarkecarmel impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT mohiuddinsyed impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT hollingworthwill impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort
AT pottershelley impactofproceduretypeonrevisionalsurgeryandsecondaryreconstructionafterimmediatebreastreconstructioninapopulationbasedcohort