John Y S Kim1, Alexei S Mlodinow1, Nima Khavanin1, Keith M Hume1, Christopher J Simmons1, Michael J Weiss1, Robert X Murphy1, Karol A Gutowski1. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill.; American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Chicago, Ill.; Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa.; and Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk discussion is a central tenet of the dialogue between surgeon and patient. Risk calculators have recently offered a new way to integrate evidence-based practice into the discussion of individualized patient risk and expectation management. Focusing on the comprehensive Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons (TOPS) database, we endeavored to add plastic surgical outcomes to the previously developed Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment (BRA) score. METHODS: The TOPS database from 2008 to 2011 was queried for patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Regression models were constructed for the following complications: seroma, dehiscence, surgical site infection (SSI), explantation, flap failure, reoperation, and overall complications. RESULTS: Of 11,992 cases, 4439 met inclusion criteria. Overall complication rate was 15.9%, with rates of 3.4% for seroma, 4.0% for SSI, 6.1% for dehiscence, 3.7% for explantation, 7.0% for flap loss, and 6.4% for reoperation. Individualized risk models were developed with acceptable goodness of fit, accuracy, and internal validity. Distribution of overall complication risk was broad and asymmetric, meaning that the average risk was often a poor estimate of the risk for any given patient. These models were added to the previously developed open-access version of the risk calculator, available at http://www.BRAscore.org. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based measures of risk may not accurately reflect risk for many individual patients. In this era of increasing emphasis on evidence-based medicine, we have developed a breast reconstruction risk assessment calculator from the robust TOPS database. The BRA Score tool can aid in individualizing-and quantifying-risk to better inform surgical decision making and better manage patient expectations.
BACKGROUND: Risk discussion is a central tenet of the dialogue between surgeon and patient. Risk calculators have recently offered a new way to integrate evidence-based practice into the discussion of individualized patient risk and expectation management. Focusing on the comprehensive Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons (TOPS) database, we endeavored to add plastic surgical outcomes to the previously developed Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment (BRA) score. METHODS: The TOPS database from 2008 to 2011 was queried for patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Regression models were constructed for the following complications: seroma, dehiscence, surgical site infection (SSI), explantation, flap failure, reoperation, and overall complications. RESULTS: Of 11,992 cases, 4439 met inclusion criteria. Overall complication rate was 15.9%, with rates of 3.4% for seroma, 4.0% for SSI, 6.1% for dehiscence, 3.7% for explantation, 7.0% for flap loss, and 6.4% for reoperation. Individualized risk models were developed with acceptable goodness of fit, accuracy, and internal validity. Distribution of overall complication risk was broad and asymmetric, meaning that the average risk was often a poor estimate of the risk for any given patient. These models were added to the previously developed open-access version of the risk calculator, available at http://www.BRAscore.org. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based measures of risk may not accurately reflect risk for many individual patients. In this era of increasing emphasis on evidence-based medicine, we have developed a breast reconstruction risk assessment calculator from the robust TOPS database. The BRA Score tool can aid in individualizing-and quantifying-risk to better inform surgical decision making and better manage patient expectations.
Authors: Claudia R Albornoz; Peter B Bach; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa; Andrea L Pusic; Colleen M McCarthy; Peter G Cordeiro; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Ibrahim Khansa; Adeyiza O Momoh; Priti P Patel; John T Nguyen; Michael J Miller; Bernard T Lee Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Michael S Gart; John T Smetona; Philip J Hanwright; Neil A Fine; Kevin P Bethke; Seema A Khan; Edward Wang; John Y S Kim Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-12-02 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Armando A Davila; Akhil K Seth; Edward Wang; Philip Hanwright; Karl Bilimoria; Neil Fine; John Ys Kim Journal: Arch Plast Surg Date: 2013-01-14
Authors: Elizabeth W Paxton; Maria C S Inacio; Monti Khatod; Eric Yue; Tadashi Funahashi; Thomas Barber Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 4.176
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
Authors: Kathryn V Isaac; Edward W Buchel; Muriel M Brackstone; Christopher Doherty; Joan E Lipa; Toni Zhong; John L Semple; Mitchell H Brown; Laura Snell; Mary-Helen Mahoney; Joshua Vorstenbosch; Margaret Wheelock; Sheina A Macadam; Christopher J Coroneos; Marie-Pascale Tremblay-Champagne; Sophocles H Voineskos; Jing Zhang; Ron Somogyi; Claire Temple-Oberle; Douglas Ross Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-02-28
Authors: Margaret A Olsen; Katelin B Nickel; Julie A Margenthaler; Ida K Fox; Kelly E Ball; Daniel Mines; Anna E Wallace; Graham A Colditz; Victoria J Fraser Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Michael M Jonczyk; Carla Suzanne Fisher; Russell Babbitt; Jessica K Paulus; Karen M Freund; Brian Czerniecki; Julie A Margenthaler; Albert Losken; Abhishek Chatterjee Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Tim Rattay; Petra Seibold; Miguel E Aguado-Barrera; Manuel Altabas; David Azria; Gillian C Barnett; Renée Bultijnck; Jenny Chang-Claude; Ananya Choudhury; Charlotte E Coles; Alison M Dunning; Rebecca M Elliott; Marie-Pierre Farcy Jacquet; Sara Gutiérrez-Enríquez; Kerstie Johnson; Anusha Müller; Giselle Post; Tiziana Rancati; Victoria Reyes; Barry S Rosenstein; Dirk De Ruysscher; Maria C de Santis; Elena Sperk; Hilary Stobart; R Paul Symonds; Begoña Taboada-Valladares; Ana Vega; Liv Veldeman; Adam J Webb; Catharine M West; Riccardo Valdagni; Christopher J Talbot Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 6.244