BACKGROUND: In choosing between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction, surgeons and patients must weigh relative risks and benefits. However, differences in outcomes across procedure types may vary between unilateral versus bilateral reconstructions. Procedure-related differences in complications and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated for unilateral and bilateral reconstruction. METHODS: Complications and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q and Patient-Reported Outcomes measurement Information System surveys) were assessed at 2 years for patients undergoing autologous or implant-based reconstructions. Stratified regression models compared outcomes between autologous and implant-based reconstructions, separately for unilateral and bilateral cohorts. RESULTS: Among 2125 patients, 917 underwent unilateral (600 implant and 317 autologous) and 1208 underwent bilateral (994 implant and 214 autologous) reconstructions. Complication rates were significantly higher in the autologous versus implant-based group for both unilateral (overall: OR, 2.50, p < 0.001; major: OR, 2.19, p = 0.001) and bilateral (overall: OR, 2.13, p < 0.001; major: OR, 1.69, p = 0.014) cohorts. In unilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly better patient-reported outcomes versus implant-based group in satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 9.85; p < 0.001), psychosocial well-being (mean difference, 4.84; p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (mean difference, 11.42; p < 0.001). In bilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly higher patient-reported outcomes only for satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 5.13; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although autologous reconstruction is associated with significantly better patient-reported outcomes compared to implant-based techniques in unilateral reconstruction, procedure choice has far less impact in bilateral reconstruction. Autologous procedures have higher complications rates in both unilateral and bilateral settings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND: In choosing between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction, surgeons and patients must weigh relative risks and benefits. However, differences in outcomes across procedure types may vary between unilateral versus bilateral reconstructions. Procedure-related differences in complications and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated for unilateral and bilateral reconstruction. METHODS: Complications and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q and Patient-Reported Outcomes measurement Information System surveys) were assessed at 2 years for patients undergoing autologous or implant-based reconstructions. Stratified regression models compared outcomes between autologous and implant-based reconstructions, separately for unilateral and bilateral cohorts. RESULTS: Among 2125 patients, 917 underwent unilateral (600 implant and 317 autologous) and 1208 underwent bilateral (994 implant and 214 autologous) reconstructions. Complication rates were significantly higher in the autologous versus implant-based group for both unilateral (overall: OR, 2.50, p < 0.001; major: OR, 2.19, p = 0.001) and bilateral (overall: OR, 2.13, p < 0.001; major: OR, 1.69, p = 0.014) cohorts. In unilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly better patient-reported outcomes versus implant-based group in satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 9.85; p < 0.001), psychosocial well-being (mean difference, 4.84; p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (mean difference, 11.42; p < 0.001). In bilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly higher patient-reported outcomes only for satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 5.13; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although autologous reconstruction is associated with significantly better patient-reported outcomes compared to implant-based techniques in unilateral reconstruction, procedure choice has far less impact in bilateral reconstruction. Autologous procedures have higher complications rates in both unilateral and bilateral settings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Karen Sepucha; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Shari Gelber; Meghan E Meyer; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Virginia F Borges; Mehra Golshan; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Janet H Yueh; Sumner A Slavin; Tolulope Adesiyun; Theodore T Nyame; Shiva Gautam; Donald J Morris; Adam M Tobias; Bernard T Lee Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: L C Hartmann; D J Schaid; J E Woods; T P Crotty; J L Myers; P G Arnold; P M Petty; T A Sellers; J L Johnson; S K McDonnell; M H Frost; R B Jenkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-01-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrea L Pusic; Anne F Klassen; Amie M Scott; Jennifer A Klok; Peter G Cordeiro; Stefan J Cano Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.730
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
Authors: Chunjun Liu; Yan Zhuang; Arash Momeni; Jie Luan; Michael T Chung; Eric Wright; Gordon K Lee Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Rachel A Freedman; Elena M Kouri; Dee W West; Shoshana Rosenberg; Ann H Partridge; Joyce Lii; Nancy L Keating Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Lea Beier; Andree Faridi; Christine Ankel; Barbara Krause-Bergmann; Stefan Paepke; Christine Mau; Maren Keller; Hans Joachim Strittmatter; Maria Margarete Karsten Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Justin M Broyles; Ethan M Balk; Gaelen P Adam; Wangnan Cao; Monika Reddy Bhuma; Shivani Mehta; Laura S Dominici; Andrea L Pusic; Ian J Saldanha Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-03-11