Christine Velazquez1, Robert C Siska2, Ivo A Pestana2. 1. Department of General Surgery, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast mound and nipple creation are the goals of the reconstructive process. Unlike in normal body mass index (BMI) women, breast reconstruction in the obese is associated with increased risk of perioperative complications. Our aim was to determine if reconstruction technique and the incidence of perioperative complications affect the achievement of reconstruction completion in the obese female. METHODS: Consecutive obese women (BMI ≥30) who underwent mastectomy and implant or autologous reconstruction were evaluated for the completion of breast reconstruction. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five women with 352 reconstructions were included. Seventy-four women underwent 111 autologous reconstructions and 151 women underwent 241 implant-based reconstructions. Chemotherapy, radiation, and delayed reconstruction timing was more common in the autologous patients. Major perioperative complications (requiring hospital readmission or unplanned surgery) occurred more frequently in the implant group (p ≤ 0.0001). Breast mounds were completed in >98% of autologous cases compared with 76% of implant cases (p ≤ 0.001). Nipple areolar complex (NAC) creation was completed in 57% of autologous patients and 33% of implant patients (p = 0.0009). The rate of successfully completing the breast mound and the NAC was higher in the autologous patient group (Mound odds ratio or OR 3.32, 95% confidence interval or CI 1.36-5.28 and NAC OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.50-4.69). CONCLUSION: Occurrence of a major complication in the implant group decreased the rate of reconstruction completion. Obese women who undergo autologous breast reconstruction are more likely to achieve breast reconstruction completion when compared with obese women who undergo implant-based breast reconstruction. Thieme. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Breast mound and nipple creation are the goals of the reconstructive process. Unlike in normal body mass index (BMI) women, breast reconstruction in the obese is associated with increased risk of perioperative complications. Our aim was to determine if reconstruction technique and the incidence of perioperative complications affect the achievement of reconstruction completion in the obese female. METHODS: Consecutive obese women (BMI ≥30) who underwent mastectomy and implant or autologous reconstruction were evaluated for the completion of breast reconstruction. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five women with 352 reconstructions were included. Seventy-four women underwent 111 autologous reconstructions and 151 women underwent 241 implant-based reconstructions. Chemotherapy, radiation, and delayed reconstruction timing was more common in the autologous patients. Major perioperative complications (requiring hospital readmission or unplanned surgery) occurred more frequently in the implant group (p ≤ 0.0001). Breast mounds were completed in >98% of autologous cases compared with 76% of implant cases (p ≤ 0.001). Nipple areolar complex (NAC) creation was completed in 57% of autologous patients and 33% of implant patients (p = 0.0009). The rate of successfully completing the breast mound and the NAC was higher in the autologous patient group (Mound odds ratio or OR 3.32, 95% confidence interval or CI 1.36-5.28 and NAC OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.50-4.69). CONCLUSION: Occurrence of a major complication in the implant group decreased the rate of reconstruction completion. Obese women who undergo autologous breast reconstruction are more likely to achieve breast reconstruction completion when compared with obese women who undergo implant-based breast reconstruction. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Steven T Lanier; Eric D Wang; John J Chen; Balvant P Arora; Steven M Katz; Mark A Gelfand; Sami U Khan; Alexander B Dagum; Duc T Bui Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Kristen A Klement; John B Hijjawi; John A LoGiudice; Mohammad Alghoul; Pamela Omesiete-Adejare Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Gretl Lam; Katie E Weichman; Patrick L Reavey; Stelios C Wilson; Jamie P Levine; Pierre B Saadeh; Robert J Allen; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp; Vishal D Thanik Journal: J Reconstr Microsurg Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.873
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