Literature DB >> 23096600

The advantages of free abdominal-based flaps over implants for breast reconstruction in obese patients.

Patrick B Garvey1, Mark T Villa, Alexander T Rozanski, Jun Liu, Geoffrey L Robb, Elisabeth K Beahm.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that, for obese patients, delayed abdominal-based free flap (rather than implant-based and immediate) breast reconstruction would result in fewer overall complications and reconstruction losses.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed consecutive implant- and abdominal-based free flap breast reconstructions performed in obese patients between 2005 and 2010 by utilizing the World Health Organization obesity classifications: class I, 30.0 to 34.9 kg/m2; class II, 35.0 to 39.9 kg/m2; and class III, ≥40 kg/m2. Primary outcome measures included flap failures and overall complications. Logistic regression analysis identified associations among patient, defect, and reconstructive characteristics and surgical outcomes.
RESULTS: The analysis included 990 breast reconstructions (548 flaps versus 442 implants) in 700 patients. Mean follow-up was 17 months. Age, smoking, medical illness, and body mass index greater than 37 predicted overall complications on regression analysis. Implants demonstrated a higher failure rate (15.8 percent) than flaps (1.5 percent). Although failure rates were similar for immediate and delayed flap reconstructions overall (1.3 versus 1.9 percent) and among obesity classifications, there was a trend toward more implant failures in immediate rather than delayed reconstructions (16.8 versus 5.3 percent). Differences between immediate implant versus flap reconstruction failure rates were highest among more obese patients [class II (24.7 versus 1.3 percent) and class III (25.4 versus 0 percent) compared with class I (11.7 versus 1.4 percent)].
CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients (particularly class II and III) experience higher failure rates with implant-based breast reconstruction, particularly immediate reconstruction. Free flap techniques or delayed implant reconstruction may be warranted in this population. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23096600      PMCID: PMC3749735          DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318267efc5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  16 in total

1.  Accuracy of a multidisciplinary team-led discussion in predicting postmastectomy radiotherapy.

Authors:  M Wilson; M Dordea; A Light; M P Serra; S R Aspinall
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  Breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomies: predictors of complications and outcomes.

Authors:  Sophocles H Voineskos; Simon G Frank; Peter G Cordeiro
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-12

Review 3.  Breast reconstruction in the high-risk population: current review of the literature and practice guidelines.

Authors:  Margaret S Roubaud; Joseph N Carey; Emma Vartanian; Ketan M Patel
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-01

Review 4.  Abdominal perforator vs. muscle sparing flaps for breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Paris D Butler; Liza C Wu
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-06

5.  Restoring Breast Volume in High BMI Patients: A Single-Center Review of Breast Reconstruction Using Hyperinflated Saline Implants.

Authors:  Milind D Kachare; Swapnil D Kachare; Bradley J Vivace; Omar Elfanagely; Brooke Barrow; Adam O'Toole; Alyssa M Simpson; Rachel Safeek; Joshua H Choo; Terry M McCurry; Bradon J Wilhelmi
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2022-07-21

6.  Microsurgical refinements with the use of internal mammary (IM) perforators as recipient vessels in transverse upper gracilis (TUG) autologous breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Samer Saour; Guido Libondi; Venkat Ramakrishnan
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-08

7.  Individualized Risk of Surgical Complications: An Application of the Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment Score.

Authors:  John Y S Kim; Alexei S Mlodinow; Nima Khavanin; Keith M Hume; Christopher J Simmons; Michael J Weiss; Robert X Murphy; Karol A Gutowski
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2015-06-05

8.  Tissue Expander versus Tissue Expander and Latissimus Flap in Morbidly Obese Breast Reconstruction Patients.

Authors:  Edward A Luce; Robert L Adams; Robert G Chandler; Joseph Parks
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2015-04-07

Review 9.  Is obesity a predisposing factor for free flap failure and complications? Comparison between breast and nonbreast reconstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jin Yong Shin; Si-Gyun Roh; Nae-Ho Lee; Kyung-Moo Yang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Optimizing aesthetic outcomes for breast reconstruction in patients with significant macromastia or ptosis.

Authors:  Wojciech Dec
Journal:  JPRAS Open       Date:  2018-02-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.