Katie E Weichman1, P Niclas Broer, Vishal D Thanik, Stelios C Wilson, Neil Tanna, Jamie P Levine, Mihye Choi, Nolan S Karp, Alexes Hazen. 1. Bronx, New York, and New Hyde Park, N.Y.; and Munich, Germany From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein School of Medicine; the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Hand, and Burn Surgery, Klinikum Bogenhausen Teaching Hospital, Technical University Munich; the Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center; and the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hosftra University/North Shore Long Island Jewish Medical Center.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction have higher long-term satisfaction rates compared with those undergoing prosthetic reconstruction. Regardless, most patients still undergo prosthetic reconstruction. The authors compared outcomes of microsurgical reconstruction to those of prosthetic reconstruction in thin patients and evaluated the effect of reconstructive type on quality of life. METHODS: After institutional review board approval was obtained, the authors reviewed all patients undergoing breast reconstruction at a single institution from November of 2007 to May of 2012. Thin patients (body mass index <22 kg/m) were included for analysis and divided into two cohorts: microsurgical reconstruction and tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Once identified, patients were mailed a BREAST-Q survey for response; a retrospective chart review was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients met inclusion criteria: 81.7 percent (n = 223) underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction and 18.3 percent (n = 50) underwent microsurgical reconstruction. Of the patients undergoing microsurgical reconstruction, 50 percent (n = 25) responded to the BREAST-Q survey, whereas 48.4 percent of patients (n = 108) with implant reconstruction were responders. Microsurgical patients required more secondary revision [48 percent (n = 12) versus 25.9 percent (n = 28)] and autologous fat grafting [32 percent (n = 8) versus 16.9 percent (n = 19)] and a greater volume of fat per injection (147.85 ml versus 63.9 ml; p < 0.001). Furthermore, BREAST-Q responses showed that these patients were more satisfied with their breasts (71.1 percent versus 64.9 percent; p = 0.004), but had similar overall satisfaction with reconstruction (73.0 percent versus 74.8 percent; p = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical breast reconstruction is efficacious in patients with a body mass index less than 22 kg/m and, when compared with prosthetic reconstruction, results in higher satisfaction with breasts. However, it requires more secondary revision surgery and the use of autologous fat grafting as an adjunct. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND:Patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction have higher long-term satisfaction rates compared with those undergoing prosthetic reconstruction. Regardless, most patients still undergo prosthetic reconstruction. The authors compared outcomes of microsurgical reconstruction to those of prosthetic reconstruction in thin patients and evaluated the effect of reconstructive type on quality of life. METHODS: After institutional review board approval was obtained, the authors reviewed all patients undergoing breast reconstruction at a single institution from November of 2007 to May of 2012. Thin patients (body mass index <22 kg/m) were included for analysis and divided into two cohorts: microsurgical reconstruction and tissue expander/implant reconstruction. Once identified, patients were mailed a BREAST-Q survey for response; a retrospective chart review was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients met inclusion criteria: 81.7 percent (n = 223) underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction and 18.3 percent (n = 50) underwent microsurgical reconstruction. Of the patients undergoing microsurgical reconstruction, 50 percent (n = 25) responded to the BREAST-Q survey, whereas 48.4 percent of patients (n = 108) with implant reconstruction were responders. Microsurgical patients required more secondary revision [48 percent (n = 12) versus 25.9 percent (n = 28)] and autologous fat grafting [32 percent (n = 8) versus 16.9 percent (n = 19)] and a greater volume of fat per injection (147.85 ml versus 63.9 ml; p < 0.001). Furthermore, BREAST-Q responses showed that these patients were more satisfied with their breasts (71.1 percent versus 64.9 percent; p = 0.004), but had similar overall satisfaction with reconstruction (73.0 percent versus 74.8 percent; p = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical breast reconstruction is efficacious in patients with a body mass index less than 22 kg/m and, when compared with prosthetic reconstruction, results in higher satisfaction with breasts. However, it requires more secondary revision surgery and the use of autologous fat grafting as an adjunct. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Authors: Michelle Coriddi; Deana Shenaq; Elizabeth Kenworthy; Jacques Mbabuike; Jonas Nelson; Andrea Pusic; Babak Mehrara; Joseph J Disa Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Salem Mohammad Alshammari; Mohammed Yousef Aldossary; Khaled Almutairi; Abdulaziz Almulhim; Gousay Alkhazmari; Mohammed Alyaqout; Hussain Abrar Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2019-02-16
Authors: Helena Sophie Leitner; Reinhard Pauzenberger; Ines Ana Ederer; Christine Radtke; Stefan Hacker Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Maxi von Glinski; Nikla Holler; Sherko Kümmel; Mattea Reinisch; Christoph Wallner; Johannes Maximilian Wagner; Mehran Dadras; Alexander Sogorski; Marcus Lehnhardt; Björn Behr Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-09-05