Literature DB >> 23973103

Risk analysis of early implant loss after immediate breast reconstruction: a review of 14,585 patients.

John P Fischer1, Ari M Wes, Charles T Tuggle, Joseph M Serletti, Liza C Wu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Early prosthesis loss is an infrequent but serious complication after breast reconstruction. We assessed perioperative risk factors associated with early device loss after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) using the ACS-NSQIP datasets. STUDY
DESIGN: We reviewed the 2005 to 2011 ACS-NSQIP databases identifying encounters for CPT codes 19357 and 19340. Patients were identified as experiencing a "loss of graft/prosthetic" based on a standard dataset variable. Patients who experienced a device loss were compared with those who did not with respect to perioperative characteristics.
RESULTS: We identified 14,585 patients with an average age of 50.9 ± 10.6 years. A multivariate regression analysis determined that age (>55 years) (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, p = 0.013) (risk score = 1), class II obesity (OR 3.17, p < 0.001) (risk score = 3), class III obesity (OR 2.41, p = 0.014) (risk score = 3), active smoking (OR 2.95, p < 0.001) (risk score = 3), bilateral reconstruction (OR 1.67, p = 0.007) (risk score = 1), and direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction (OR 1.69, p = 0.024) (risk score = 1) were associated with early device loss. Odds ratios were used to assign weighted risk scores to each patient, and risk categories were broken into low risk (0 to 1, n = 9,349), intermediate risk (2 to 5, n = 5,001), and high risk (≥ 6, n = 233) groups. The risk of device loss was significantly higher with increased risk score (0.39% vs 1.48% vs 3.86%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Early device loss following IBR is a complex multifactorial process related to identifiable preoperative risk factors. This study demonstrated that age, obesity, smoking, bilateral procedures, and DTI reconstructions are associated with increased risk of implant loss.
Copyright © 2013 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMI; CPT; Current Procedural Terminology; DTI; IBR; OR; TE; body mass index; direct-to-implant; immediate breast reconstruction; odds ratio; tissue expander

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23973103     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.389

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  24 in total

Review 1.  Breast Reconstruction Following Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Bernd Gerber; Mario Marx; Michael Untch; Andree Faridi
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Effect of Patient Age on Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction: Results from a Multicenter Prospective Study.

Authors:  Katherine B Santosa; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Late Surgical-Site Infection in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Indranil Sinha; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins; Jennifer B Hamill; Xiaoxue Chen; Hyungjin M Kim; Gretchen Guldbrandsen; Yoon S Chun
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Comparison of Immediate Breast Reconstruction Outcomes in Patients With and Without Prior Cosmetic Breast Surgery.

Authors:  Caroline K Fiser; Joshua P Kronenfeld; Sophia N Liu; Neha Goel; Wrood Kassira; John C Oeltjen; Susan B Kesmodel
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Patient determinants as independent risk factors for postoperative complications of breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Andri Thorarinsson; Victoria Fröjd; Lars Kölby; Mattias Lidén; Anna Elander; Hans Mark
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-08

6.  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

7.  Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: The Critical Role of Quality Measurement.

Authors:  Tracy Spinks; Patricia A Ganz; George W Sledge; Laura Levit; James A Hayman; Timothy J Eberlein; Thomas W Feeley
Journal:  Healthc (Amst)       Date:  2014-03-01

Review 8.  Scoping Review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Plastic Surgery Research.

Authors:  Haley F M Augustine; Jiayi Hu; Zainab Najarali; Matthew McRae
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2018-10-21       Impact factor: 0.947

9.  Influence of Incision Site on Postoperative Outcome in Skin-/Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Is There a Difference between Radial and Inframammary Incision?

Authors:  Monika Lanthaler; Rossella Spinelli; Christoph Tasch; Michael Sieb; Manuel Harfmann; Agnese Nitto; Gerhard Pierer; Thomas Bauer
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 10.  Clinical outcomes of patients after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction based on the expander/implant technique.

Authors:  Uhi Toh; Miki Takenaka; Nobutaka Iwakuma; Yoshito Akagi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 2.549

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.