Cargando…

A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review

INTRODUCTION: Salvage breast reconstruction with autologous tissue is becoming more prevalent due to a resurgence in implant-based procedures. The latter has caused a commensurate rise in failed or treatment-resistant prosthetic cases requiring conversion to free tissue transfers. Salvage reconstruc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bojanic, Christine, Di Pace, Bruno, Ghorra, Dina T., Fopp, Laura J., Rabey, Nicholas G., Malata, Charles M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10619878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37910518
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288364
_version_ 1785130086612074496
author Bojanic, Christine
Di Pace, Bruno
Ghorra, Dina T.
Fopp, Laura J.
Rabey, Nicholas G.
Malata, Charles M.
author_facet Bojanic, Christine
Di Pace, Bruno
Ghorra, Dina T.
Fopp, Laura J.
Rabey, Nicholas G.
Malata, Charles M.
author_sort Bojanic, Christine
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Salvage breast reconstruction with autologous tissue is becoming more prevalent due to a resurgence in implant-based procedures. The latter has caused a commensurate rise in failed or treatment-resistant prosthetic cases requiring conversion to free tissue transfers. Salvage reconstruction is often considered more challenging, owing to patient presentation, prior treatments and intraoperative difficulties. The aim of the study was to test this hypothesis by comparing outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage autologous microsurgical breast reconstructions in a retrospective matched cohort study. METHODS: The demographics, risk factors, operative details and outcomes of patients who underwent free flap salvage of implant-based reconstructions by a single operator (2005–2019) were retrospectively evaluated. For each salvage reconstruction, the consecutive non-salvage abdominal free flap reconstruction was selected for comparison. The clinical outcomes including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, flap survival and complication rates were compared. RESULTS: Of 442 microsurgical patients, 35 (8.0%) had salvage reconstruction comprising 41 flap transfers (29 unilateral, 6 bilateral) and 42 flaps (28 unilateral, 7 bilateral) in nonsalvage reconstruction. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps comprised the commonest autologous tissue used in both groups at 74% and 71% respectively. Most patients (83%) underwent salvage reconstruction for severe capsular contractures. There was a significant difference in radiation exposure between groups (salvage reconstruction 89%, non-salvage reconstruction 26%; p<0.00001). All 83 flaps were successful with similar reoperation rates and intraoperative blood losses. Unilateral salvage reconstruction took on average two hours longer than non-salvage reconstruction (p = 0.008). Overall complication rates were similar (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: This 15-year study shows that despite salvage autologous free flap breast reconstruction requiring longer operation times, its intra and postoperative outcomes are generally comparable to non-salvage cases. Therefore, salvage breast reconstruction with free flaps provides a reliable option for failed or suboptimal implant-based reconstructions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10619878
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106198782023-11-02 A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review Bojanic, Christine Di Pace, Bruno Ghorra, Dina T. Fopp, Laura J. Rabey, Nicholas G. Malata, Charles M. PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Salvage breast reconstruction with autologous tissue is becoming more prevalent due to a resurgence in implant-based procedures. The latter has caused a commensurate rise in failed or treatment-resistant prosthetic cases requiring conversion to free tissue transfers. Salvage reconstruction is often considered more challenging, owing to patient presentation, prior treatments and intraoperative difficulties. The aim of the study was to test this hypothesis by comparing outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage autologous microsurgical breast reconstructions in a retrospective matched cohort study. METHODS: The demographics, risk factors, operative details and outcomes of patients who underwent free flap salvage of implant-based reconstructions by a single operator (2005–2019) were retrospectively evaluated. For each salvage reconstruction, the consecutive non-salvage abdominal free flap reconstruction was selected for comparison. The clinical outcomes including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, flap survival and complication rates were compared. RESULTS: Of 442 microsurgical patients, 35 (8.0%) had salvage reconstruction comprising 41 flap transfers (29 unilateral, 6 bilateral) and 42 flaps (28 unilateral, 7 bilateral) in nonsalvage reconstruction. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps comprised the commonest autologous tissue used in both groups at 74% and 71% respectively. Most patients (83%) underwent salvage reconstruction for severe capsular contractures. There was a significant difference in radiation exposure between groups (salvage reconstruction 89%, non-salvage reconstruction 26%; p<0.00001). All 83 flaps were successful with similar reoperation rates and intraoperative blood losses. Unilateral salvage reconstruction took on average two hours longer than non-salvage reconstruction (p = 0.008). Overall complication rates were similar (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: This 15-year study shows that despite salvage autologous free flap breast reconstruction requiring longer operation times, its intra and postoperative outcomes are generally comparable to non-salvage cases. Therefore, salvage breast reconstruction with free flaps provides a reliable option for failed or suboptimal implant-based reconstructions. Public Library of Science 2023-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10619878/ /pubmed/37910518 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288364 Text en © 2023 Bojanic et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bojanic, Christine
Di Pace, Bruno
Ghorra, Dina T.
Fopp, Laura J.
Rabey, Nicholas G.
Malata, Charles M.
A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review
title A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review
title_full A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review
title_fullStr A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review
title_short A comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—Results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review
title_sort comparison of presentations and outcomes of salvage versus non-salvage abdominal free flap breast reconstructions—results of a 15-year tertiary referral centre review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10619878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37910518
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288364
work_keys_str_mv AT bojanicchristine acomparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT dipacebruno acomparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT ghorradinat acomparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT fopplauraj acomparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT rabeynicholasg acomparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT malatacharlesm acomparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT bojanicchristine comparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT dipacebruno comparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT ghorradinat comparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT fopplauraj comparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT rabeynicholasg comparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview
AT malatacharlesm comparisonofpresentationsandoutcomesofsalvageversusnonsalvageabdominalfreeflapbreastreconstructionsresultsofa15yeartertiaryreferralcentrereview