Cargando…

Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study

PURPOSE: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) at the time of mastectomy is gaining popularity, as studies show no negative impact on recurrence or patient survival, but better aesthetic outcome, less psychological distress and lower treatment costs. Using the largest database available in Europe, t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prantl, L., Moellhoff, N., von Fritschen, U., Giunta, R. E., Germann, G., Kehrer, A., Lonic, D., Zeman, F., Broer, P. N., Heidekrueger, P. I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584555/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32895743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05779-w
_version_ 1783599618020343808
author Prantl, L.
Moellhoff, N.
von Fritschen, U.
Giunta, R. E.
Germann, G.
Kehrer, A.
Lonic, D.
Zeman, F.
Broer, P. N.
Heidekrueger, P. I.
author_facet Prantl, L.
Moellhoff, N.
von Fritschen, U.
Giunta, R. E.
Germann, G.
Kehrer, A.
Lonic, D.
Zeman, F.
Broer, P. N.
Heidekrueger, P. I.
author_sort Prantl, L.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) at the time of mastectomy is gaining popularity, as studies show no negative impact on recurrence or patient survival, but better aesthetic outcome, less psychological distress and lower treatment costs. Using the largest database available in Europe, the presented study compared outcomes and complications of IBR vs. delayed breast reconstruction (DBR). METHODS: 3926 female patients underwent 4577 free DIEP-flap breast reconstructions after malignancies in 22 different German breast cancer centers. The cases were divided into two groups according to the time of reconstruction: an IBR and a DBR group. Surgical complications were accounted for and the groups were then compared. RESULTS: Overall, the rate of partial-(1.0 versus 1.2 percent of cases; p = 0.706) and total flap loss (2.3 versus 1.9 percent of cases; p = 0.516) showed no significant difference between the groups. The rate of revision surgery was slightly, but significantly lower in the IBR group (7.7 versus 9.8 percent; p = 0.039). Postoperative mobilization was commenced significantly earlier in the IBR group (mobilization on postoperative day 1: 82.1 versus 68.7 percent; p < 0.001), and concordantly the mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (7.3 (SD3.7) versus 8.9 (SD13.0) days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IBR is feasible and cannot be considered a risk factor for complications or flap outcome. Our results support the current trend towards an increasing number of IBR. Especially in times of economic pressure in health care, the importance of a decrease of hospitalization cannot be overemphasized.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7584555
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75845552020-10-27 Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study Prantl, L. Moellhoff, N. von Fritschen, U. Giunta, R. E. Germann, G. Kehrer, A. Lonic, D. Zeman, F. Broer, P. N. Heidekrueger, P. I. Arch Gynecol Obstet Gynecologic Oncology PURPOSE: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) at the time of mastectomy is gaining popularity, as studies show no negative impact on recurrence or patient survival, but better aesthetic outcome, less psychological distress and lower treatment costs. Using the largest database available in Europe, the presented study compared outcomes and complications of IBR vs. delayed breast reconstruction (DBR). METHODS: 3926 female patients underwent 4577 free DIEP-flap breast reconstructions after malignancies in 22 different German breast cancer centers. The cases were divided into two groups according to the time of reconstruction: an IBR and a DBR group. Surgical complications were accounted for and the groups were then compared. RESULTS: Overall, the rate of partial-(1.0 versus 1.2 percent of cases; p = 0.706) and total flap loss (2.3 versus 1.9 percent of cases; p = 0.516) showed no significant difference between the groups. The rate of revision surgery was slightly, but significantly lower in the IBR group (7.7 versus 9.8 percent; p = 0.039). Postoperative mobilization was commenced significantly earlier in the IBR group (mobilization on postoperative day 1: 82.1 versus 68.7 percent; p < 0.001), and concordantly the mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (7.3 (SD3.7) versus 8.9 (SD13.0) days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IBR is feasible and cannot be considered a risk factor for complications or flap outcome. Our results support the current trend towards an increasing number of IBR. Especially in times of economic pressure in health care, the importance of a decrease of hospitalization cannot be overemphasized. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-09-07 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7584555/ /pubmed/32895743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05779-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Gynecologic Oncology
Prantl, L.
Moellhoff, N.
von Fritschen, U.
Giunta, R. E.
Germann, G.
Kehrer, A.
Lonic, D.
Zeman, F.
Broer, P. N.
Heidekrueger, P. I.
Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study
title Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study
title_full Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study
title_fullStr Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study
title_full_unstemmed Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study
title_short Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study
title_sort immediate versus secondary diep flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study
topic Gynecologic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584555/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32895743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05779-w
work_keys_str_mv AT prantll immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT moellhoffn immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT vonfritschenu immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT giuntare immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT germanng immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT kehrera immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT lonicd immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT zemanf immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT broerpn immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy
AT heidekruegerpi immediateversussecondarydiepflapbreastreconstructionamulticenteroutcomestudy