Cargando…
Comparing complications and perioperative teams in microsurgical breast reconstruction: retrospective cohort study
BACKGROUND: Subspecialization with dedicated perioperative teams has become common practice in some surgical disciplines. While surgeon experience, the number of surgeons involved, and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are known factors affecting the outcome after microsurgical breast...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9742050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36518805 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/gs-22-295 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Subspecialization with dedicated perioperative teams has become common practice in some surgical disciplines. While surgeon experience, the number of surgeons involved, and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are known factors affecting the outcome after microsurgical breast reconstruction, the impact of the perioperative team has not been studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study consisting of a chart review of all patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction from January 2019–April 2020. Surgery was performed by three microsurgeons at two institutions with different perioperative teams—one being a small clinic [private clinic (PC), 33 beds] and the other being a larger hospital [corporate hospital (CH), 335 beds]. Patients were grouped into two cohorts according to the institution where surgery was performed. The primary outcomes studied were frequency of revision surgery, flap loss and patient length-of-stay (LOS). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty microsurgical breast reconstructions were performed in 125 patients. Demographic data [age, body mass index (BMI), current tobacco use, donor site] was found statistically comparable between both cohorts. In the PC cohort with fewer perioperative care providers, lower rates of revision surgery and flap loss were observed (P value =0.009 and 0.04, respectively). LOS was not significantly different between the two cohorts (P value =0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of microsurgical breast reconstruction depends on multiple factors. In this study, fewer flap complications occurred at the small clinic. One reason among others might be the lower number of perioperative care providers involved and hence higher likelihood of sharing microsurgical cases, which facilitates routine and ensures less variability in care. The value of perioperative team subspecialization in microsurgical breast reconstruction needs to be assessed in prospective studies. |
---|