Literature DB >> 26910656

Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Comparison of Four Abdominally Based Autologous Reconstruction Methods.

Sheina A Macadam1, Toni Zhong, Katie Weichman, Michael Papsdorf, Peter A Lennox, Alexes Hazen, Evan Matros, Joseph Disa, Babak Mehrara, Andrea L Pusic.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20 percent of women select autologous tissue for postmastectomy breast reconstruction, and most commonly choose the abdomen as the donor site. An increasing proportion of women are seeking muscle-sparing procedures, but the benefit remains controversial. It is therefore important to determine whether better outcomes are associated with these techniques, thereby justifying longer operative times and increased costs.
METHODS: Patients from five North American centers were eligible if they underwent reconstruction by means of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap, muscle-sparing free transverse abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap, free TRAM flap, or the pedicled TRAM flap. Patients were sent the BREAST-Q. Demographics and complications were collected.
RESULTS: The authors analyzed 1790 charts representing 670 DIEP, 293 muscle-sparing free TRAM, 683 pedicled TRAM, and 144 free TRAM patients with an average follow-up of 5.5 years. Flap loss did not differ by flap type. Partial flap loss was higher in pedicled TRAM compared with DIEP (p = 0.002). Fat necrosis was higher in pedicled TRAM compared with DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM (p < 0.001). Hernia/bulge was highest in pedicled TRAM (p < 0.001). Physical well-being (abdomen) scores were higher in DIEP compared with pedicled TRAM controlling for confounders.
CONCLUSIONS: Complications and patient-reported outcomes differ when comparing abdominally based breast reconstruction techniques. The results of this study show that the DIEP flap was associated with the highest abdominal well-being and the lowest abdominal morbidity compared with the pedicled TRAM flap, but did not differ from muscle-sparing free TRAM and free TRAM flaps. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26910656      PMCID: PMC5064829          DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000479932.11170.8f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  42 in total

1.  The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples.

Authors:  Stefan J Cano; Anne F Klassen; Amie M Scott; Peter G Cordeiro; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 2.  Room for improvement? Reporting response rates and recruitment in nursing research in the past decade.

Authors:  Frances Badger; Julie Werrett
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.187

3.  Use of autologous and microsurgical breast reconstruction by U.S. plastic surgeons.

Authors:  Anita R Kulkarni; Erika Davis Sears; Dunya M Atisha; Amy K Alderman
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Evolution of the pedicled TRAM flap: a prospective study of 500 consecutive cases by a single surgeon in Asian patients.

Authors:  Eun Key Kim; Jin Sup Eom; Sei Hyun Ahn; Byung Ho Son; Taik Jong Lee
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.539

5.  Comparison of morbidity, functional outcome, and satisfaction following bilateral TRAM versus bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Yoon S Chun; Indranil Sinha; Arthur Turko; Janet H Yueh; Stuart Lipsitz; Julian J Pribaz; Bernard T Lee
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes.

Authors:  Patrick B Garvey; Edward W Buchel; Barbara A Pockaj; William J Casey; Richard J Gray; José L Hernández; Thomas D Samson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Risk factors for abdominal donor-site morbidity in free flap breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Raj M Vyas; Brian P Dickinson; Jaco H Fastekjian; James P Watson; Andrew L DaLio; Christopher A Crisera
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Muscle sparing-2 transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: a comparison with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap.

Authors:  Meisei Takeishi; Masashi Fujimoto; Katuhiro Ishida; Yojiro Makino
Journal:  Microsurgery       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.425

Review 9.  Abdominal wall following free TRAM or DIEP flap reconstruction: a meta-analysis and critical review.

Authors:  Li-Xing Man; Jesse C Selber; Joseph M Serletti
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Conventional TRAM flap versus free microsurgical TRAM flap for immediate breast reconstruction.

Authors:  J C Grotting; M M Urist; W A Maddox; L O Vasconez
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  19 in total

1.  Function and Strength after Free Abdominally Based Breast Reconstruction: A 10-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Michael G Tecci; Michael A Lanni; John P Fischer; Joshua Fosnot; Jesse C Selber; Liza C Wu; Joseph M Serletti
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Patient-Reported Outcomes 1 Year After Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study.

Authors:  Andrea L Pusic; Evan Matros; Neil Fine; Edward Buchel; Gayle M Gordillo; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin M Kim; Ji Qi; Claudia Albornoz; Anne F Klassen; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  The Impact of Obesity on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Nikhil Sobti; Aadit Patel; Evan Matros; Colleen M McCarthy; Joseph H Dayan; Joseph J Disa; Peter G Cordeiro; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic; Robert J Allen
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Influencers of Immediate Postmastectomy Reconstruction: A National Cancer Database Analysis.

Authors:  Dora Danko; Yuan Liu; Feifei Geng; Theresa W Gillespie
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 4.283

Review 5.  A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Complications Related to Breast Reconstruction Using Different Skin Flaps After Breast Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Jiahua Xing; Ziqi Jia; Yichi Xu; Muzi Chen; Youbai Chen; Yan Han
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 2.708

6.  Successful Salvage of Delayed Venous Congestion After DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Kristopher Katira; Samita Goyal; Chelsea Venditto; John A LoGiudice; Erin L Doren
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2019-12-03

7.  Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Abdominally Based Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study.

Authors:  Jessica Erdmann-Sager; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic; Ji Qi; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Gretchen E Guldbrandsen; Yoon S Chun
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Enhancing breast projection in autologous reconstruction using the St Andrew's coning technique and 3D volumetric analysis.

Authors:  Michael P Chae; Warren Matthew Rozen; Nakul Gamanlal Patel; David J Hunter-Smith; Venkat Ramakrishnan
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-12

9.  Multi-center investigation of breast reconstruction after mastectomy from Chinese Society of Breast Surgery: A survey based on 31 tertiary hospitals (CSBrS-004).

Authors:  Feng Xu; Chuqi Lei; Heng Cao; Jun Liu; Jie Li; Hongchuan Jiang
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-28       Impact factor: 5.087

10.  Impact of Physician Payments on Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claim Database Analysis.

Authors:  Hina Panchal; Meghana G Shamsunder; Avraham Sheinin; Clifford C Sheckter; Nicholas L Berlin; Jonas A Nelson; Robert Allen; David Rubin; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Evan Matros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 5.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.