Literature DB >> 27010582

Effect of Noninfectious Wound Complications after Mastectomy on Subsequent Surgical Procedures and Early Implant Loss.

Katelin B Nickel1, Ida K Fox2, Julie A Margenthaler3, Anna E Wallace4, Victoria J Fraser1, Margaret A Olsen5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Noninfectious wound complications (NIWCs) after mastectomy are not routinely tracked and data are generally limited to single-center studies. Our objective was to determine the rates of NIWCs among women undergoing mastectomy and assess the impact of immediate reconstruction (IR). STUDY
DESIGN: We established a retrospective cohort using commercial claims data of women aged 18 to 64 years with procedure codes for mastectomy from January 2004 through December 2011. Noninfectious wound complications within 180 days after operation were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes and rates were compared among mastectomy with and without autologous flap and/or implant IR.
RESULTS: There were 18,696 procedures (10,836 [58%] with IR) among 18,085 women identified. The overall NIWC rate was 9.2% (1,714 of 18,696); 56% required surgical treatment. The NIWC rates were 5.8% (455 of 7,860) after mastectomy only, 10.3% (843 of 8,217) after mastectomy plus implant, 17.4% (337 of 1,942) after mastectomy plus flap, and 11.7% (79 of 677) after mastectomy plus flap and implant (p < 0.001). Rates of individual NIWCs varied by specific complication and procedure type, ranging from 0.5% for fat necrosis after mastectomy only, to 7.2% for dehiscence after mastectomy plus flap. The percentage of NIWCs resulting in surgical wound care varied from 50% (210 of 416) for mastectomy plus flap, to 60% (507 of 843) for mastectomy plus implant. Early implant removal within 60 days occurred after 6.2% of mastectomy plus implant; 66% of the early implant removals were due to NIWCs and/or surgical site infection.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of NIWC was approximately 2-fold higher after mastectomy with IR than after mastectomy only. Noninfectious wound complications were associated with additional surgical treatment, particularly in women with implant reconstruction, and with early implant loss.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27010582      PMCID: PMC4846523          DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.01.050

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


  43 in total

1.  Use of diagnosis codes and/or wound culture results for surveillance of surgical site infection after mastectomy and breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Margaret A Olsen; Victoria J Fraser
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.254

2.  An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm).

Authors:  C Andrew Salzberg; Andrew Y Ashikari; R Michael Koch; Elizabeth Chabner-Thompson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Microvascular breast reconstruction in the diabetic patient.

Authors:  Randy B Miller; Gregory Reece; Stephen S Kroll; David Chang; Howard Langstein; Argyrios Ziogas; Geoffrey Robb; Gregory R D Evans
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Effects of an autologous flap combined with an implant for breast reconstruction: an evaluation of 1000 consecutive reconstructions of previously irradiated breasts.

Authors:  David W Chang; Yoav Barnea; Geoffrey L Robb
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps.

Authors:  Donald P Baumann; Heather Y Lin; Pierre M Chevray
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Risk factors and complications in free TRAM flap breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Jesse C Selber; Jibby E Kurichi; Stephen J Vega; Seema S Sonnad; Joseph M Serletti
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.539

7.  440 Consecutive immediate, implant-based, single-surgeon breast reconstructions in 281 patients: a comparison of early outcomes and costs between SurgiMend fetal bovine and AlloDerm human cadaveric acellular dermal matrices.

Authors:  Jennifer L Butterfield
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Skin Flap Necrosis After Mastectomy With Reconstruction: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Cindy B Matsen; Babak Mehrara; Anne Eaton; Deborah Capko; Anastasia Berg; Michelle Stempel; Kimberly J Van Zee; Andrea Pusic; Tari A King; Hiram S Cody; Melissa Pilewskie; Peter Cordeiro; Lisa Sclafani; George Plitas; Mary L Gemignani; Joseph Disa; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  A comparative analysis of cryopreserved versus prehydrated human acellular dermal matrices in tissue expander breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Akhil K Seth; Scott Persing; Caitlin M Connor; Armando Davila; Elliot Hirsch; Neil A Fine; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.539

10.  Hospital-associated costs due to surgical site infection after breast surgery.

Authors:  Margaret A Olsen; Sorawuth Chu-Ongsakul; Keith E Brandt; Jill R Dietz; Jennie Mayfield; Victoria J Fraser
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2008-01
View more
  7 in total

1.  THE EPIDEMIOLOGY AND OUTCOMES OF BREAST CANCER SURGERY.

Authors:  Victoria J Fraser; Katelin B Nickel; Ida K Fox; Julie A Margenthaler; Margaret A Olsen
Journal:  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc       Date:  2016

2.  Accordion: A Useful and Workable Classification of Complications After Breast Reconstructive Surgery.

Authors:  Justyna Jończyk; Jerzy Jankau
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 0.558

3.  Validation of ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Codes for Surgical Site Infection and Noninfectious Wound Complications After Mastectomy.

Authors:  Margaret A Olsen; Kelly E Ball; Katelin B Nickel; Anna E Wallace; Victoria J Fraser
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 3.254

4.  Prevalence and Predictors of Postdischarge Antibiotic Use Following Mastectomy.

Authors:  Margaret A Olsen; Katelin B Nickel; Victoria J Fraser; Anna E Wallace; David K Warren
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 3.254

5.  Two-Staged Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Long-Term Outcome Study in a Young Population.

Authors:  Oscar J Manrique; Ali Charafeddine; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Joseph Banuelos; Steven R Jacobson; Jorys Martinez-Jorge; Minh-Doan Nguyen; Christin Harless; Nho V Tran; Basel Sharaf; James W Jakub; Tina J Hieken; Amy C Degnim; Judy C Boughey
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 2.430

6.  The Modified M-plasty Approach to Mastectomy: Avoiding the Lateral Dog-ear.

Authors:  Farid Meybodi; My Pham; Negin Sedaghat; Elisabeth Elder; James French
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-02-18

7.  Comparison of Wound Complications After Immediate, Delayed, and Secondary Breast Reconstruction Procedures.

Authors:  Margaret A Olsen; Katelin B Nickel; Ida K Fox; Julie A Margenthaler; Anna E Wallace; Victoria J Fraser
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 14.766

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.