Cargando…

An Ounce of Prediction is Worth a Pound of Cure: Risk Calculators in Breast Reconstruction

Preoperative risk calculators provide individualized risk assessment and stratification for surgical patients. Recently, several general surgery–derived models have been applied to the plastic surgery patient population, and several plastic surgery–specific calculators have been developed. In this s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oleck, Nicholas C., Biswas, Sonali, Shammas, Ronnie L., Naga, Hani I., Phillips, Brett T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9187190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35702532
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004324
Descripción
Sumario:Preoperative risk calculators provide individualized risk assessment and stratification for surgical patients. Recently, several general surgery–derived models have been applied to the plastic surgery patient population, and several plastic surgery–specific calculators have been developed. In this scoping review, the authors aimed to identify and critically appraise risk calculators implemented in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Included studies described the development of a novel risk calculator, or validation of an existing calculator, in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. RESULTS: In total, 4641 studies met criteria for title and abstract screening. Forty-seven were eligible for full-text review, and 28 met final inclusion criteria. The most common risk calculators included the Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment score (n = 6 studies), modified frailty index (n = 3), Caprini score (n = 3), and ACS NSQIP calculator (n = 2). Calculators were applied to institutional data (n = 17), NSQIP (n = 6), and Tracking Outcomes in Plastic Surgery (n = 1) databases. Predicted outcomes included general postoperative complications (n = 17), venous thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism (n = 4), infection (n = 2), and patient reported outcomes (n = 2). Model accuracy was reported in 18 studies, and it varied significantly (accurate risk calculator 0.49–0.85). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide a systematic review of available risk calculators for breast reconstruction. Models vary significantly in their statistical basis, predicted outcomes, and overall accuracy. Risk calculators are valuable tools that may aid in individualized risk assessments, preoperative counseling, and expectation management in breast reconstruction.