BACKGROUND: The aims of the current study were to (1) measure trends in the type of mastectomy performed, (2) evaluate sociodemographic/hospital characteristics of patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral mastectomies, and (3) analyze reconstruction rates and method used following different mastectomy types. METHODS: Mastectomies from 1998 to 2008 were analyzed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Mastectomies (n = 178,603) were classified as either unilateral, contralateral prophylactic, or bilateral prophylactic. Reconstructive procedures were categorized into either implant or autologous. Longitudinal trends were analyzed with Poisson regression and sociodemographic/hospital variables were analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Unilateral mastectomies decreased 2 percent per year, whereas contralateral and bilateral prophylactic mastectomies increased significantly by 15 and 12 percent per year, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (compared with unilateral mastectomy) were patients younger than 39 years, Caucasian and Hispanic race, private insurance carriers, treated in teaching hospitals, and from South and Midwest regions. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is the only group with increased reconstruction rates throughout the study period (p < 0.01). Although implant use increased for all mastectomy types, it remains greater in bilateral and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: There is increasing use of bilateral mastectomies in the United States, particularly in patients with unilateral cancer. Although implant use has increased for all mastectomy types, they are used most commonly following bilateral and contralateral prophylactic mastectomies. Changing mastectomy patterns are one factor underlying the paradigm shift away from autologous tissue to implant-based reconstruction.
BACKGROUND: The aims of the current study were to (1) measure trends in the type of mastectomy performed, (2) evaluate sociodemographic/hospital characteristics of patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus unilateral mastectomies, and (3) analyze reconstruction rates and method used following different mastectomy types. METHODS: Mastectomies from 1998 to 2008 were analyzed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Mastectomies (n = 178,603) were classified as either unilateral, contralateral prophylactic, or bilateral prophylactic. Reconstructive procedures were categorized into either implant or autologous. Longitudinal trends were analyzed with Poisson regression and sociodemographic/hospital variables were analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Unilateral mastectomies decreased 2 percent per year, whereas contralateral and bilateral prophylactic mastectomies increased significantly by 15 and 12 percent per year, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (compared with unilateral mastectomy) were patients younger than 39 years, Caucasian and Hispanic race, private insurance carriers, treated in teaching hospitals, and from South and Midwest regions. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is the only group with increased reconstruction rates throughout the study period (p < 0.01). Although implant use increased for all mastectomy types, it remains greater in bilateral and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: There is increasing use of bilateral mastectomies in the United States, particularly in patients with unilateral cancer. Although implant use has increased for all mastectomy types, they are used most commonly following bilateral and contralateral prophylactic mastectomies. Changing mastectomy patterns are one factor underlying the paradigm shift away from autologous tissue to implant-based reconstruction.
Authors: Jonas A Nelson; Sophocles H Voineskos; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Colleen M McCarthy; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Ji Qi; Edwin Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Adeyiza O Momoh; Wess A Cohen; Kelley M Kidwell; Jennifer B Hamill; Ji Qi; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins; Evan Matros Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jennica Platt; Toni Zhong; Rahim Moineddin; Gillian L Booth; Alexandra M Easson; Kimberly Fernandes; Peter Gozdyra; Nancy N Baxter Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Shailesh Agarwal; Kelley M Kidwell; Aaron Farberg; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Kevin C Chung; Adeyiza O Momoh Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Margaret A Olsen; Katelin B Nickel; Ida K Fox; Julie A Margenthaler; Kelly E Ball; Daniel Mines; Anna E Wallace; Victoria J Fraser Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Barbara L Smith; Sara Frederick; Anna Mitarotondo; Deborah A Kashy; Laurie J Kirstein Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Jaime A Cavallo; Noopur Gangopadhyay; Jason Dudas; Andres A Roma; Mateusz S Jasielec; Jack Baty; Sara Baalman; Margaret M Frisella; Marissa M Tenenbaum; Terence M Myckatyn; Brent D Matthews; Corey R Deeken Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Peter Angelos; Isabelle Bedrosian; David M Euhus; Virginia M Herrmann; Steven J Katz; Andrea Pusic Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 5.344