Literature DB >> 23676517

Long-term outcomes of failed prosthetic breast reconstruction.

Scott L Spear1, Derek Masden, Samir S Rao, Maurice Y Nahabedian.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: For patients undergoing prosthetic breast reconstruction whose device was removed because of infection or exposure, there is no published information examining long-term outcomes. Despite initial failure, many patients want to pursue breast reconstruction.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction failures during a 5-year period.
RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (29 breasts) were identified who failed primary prosthetic 2-stage reconstruction. On average, the device was removed 262 days from the initial expander placement. Of these breasts, 19 were removed for infection, 7 for exposure, and 3 for a combination of both. Of these 29 failures, secondary reconstruction was attempted in 20 (69%). Among secondary reconstructions, 13 were with a device and 7 with autologous tissue. Of the 13 (92.3%) secondary device reconstructions, 12 were successful.Those in whom secondary reconstruction was attempted were younger at initial reconstruction (48 vs 57 years; P = 0.038), had lower body mass indexes (BMIs) (26.0 vs 29.4; P = 0.27), and smaller breasts (650 vs 979 g; P = 0.23) than those who did not attempt secondary reconstruction.Of the nipple-sparing mastectomy patients, 100% underwent secondary reconstruction, whereas only 61% of skin-sparing mastectomy patients underwent secondary reconstruction (P = 0.14).For patients undergoing secondary reconstruction, those receiving a second device reconstruction had lower BMIs (24.7 vs 28.5; P = 0.18) and smaller breasts (489 vs 946 g; P = 0.08) than those with autologous reconstructions; 15% of secondary implant reconstructions underwent irradiation versus 43% of the secondary autologous reconstructions (P = 0.29).
CONCLUSIONS: After failed prosthetic breast reconstruction, a second attempt with an implant in properly selected patients has a high success rate (92.3%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23676517     DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31827565d1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Plast Surg        ISSN: 0148-7043            Impact factor:   1.539


  7 in total

1.  Tissue Expander Complications Do Not Preclude a Second Successful Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Louis H Poppler; Minh-Bao Mundschenk; Andrew Linkugel; Ema Zubovic; Utku C Dolen; Terence M Myckatyn
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Immediate implant replacement with DIEP flap: a single-stage salvage option in failed implant-based breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Miguel De La Parra Marquez; Ricardo Fernandez-Riera; Hector Vela Cardona; Jesus María Rangel Flores
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 2.754

3.  Bacterial profile of suction drains and the relationship thereof to surgical-site infections in prosthetic breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Jeongmin Yoon; Jae-Ho Chung; Na-Hyun Hwang; Byung-Il Lee; Seung-Ha Park; Eul-Sik Yoon
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2018-11-15

4.  Beyond 30 Days: A Risk Calculator for Longer Term Outcomes of Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jordan T Blough; Michael M Vu; Cecil S Qiu; Alexei S Mlodinow; Nima Khavanin; Neil A Fine; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-12-12

Review 5.  Local recurrence of mammary Paget's disease after nipple-sparing mastectomy and implant breast reconstruction: a case report and literature review.

Authors:  Qian Pu; Qianqian Zhao; Dezong Gao
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 3.253

6.  Experiences of implant loss after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: qualitative study.

Authors:  B Mahoney; E Walklet; E Bradley; S Thrush; J Skillman; L Whisker; N Barnes; C Holcombe; S Potter
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-03-17

Review 7.  Submuscular and Pre-Pectoral ADM Assisted Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Roberto Cuomo
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 2.430

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.