Background: Microsurgical breast reconstruction is typically performed at large, academic centers by fellowship-trained surgeons. This study examines surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction at a community hospital by surgeons without fellowship training. Methods: A prospective clinical database and BREAST-Q results were obtained from 33 patients after 45 DIEP flaps performed between 2016 and 2020. PROs and complications were compared to normative data and multi-institutional series. Regression analysis of patient and surgical factors with BREAST-Q scores was performed. Results: Thirty-one patients completed BREAST-Q (response rate = 94%). Overall flap survival was 97.8%. Complications were not statistically different from larger published series (P > 0.05). Patients reported excellent outcomes after breast reconstruction: satisfaction with breasts (80.6 ± 4.3), satisfaction with outcome (88.3 ±17.7), psychosocial well-being (80.74 ± 17.4), sexual well-being (68.2 ± 24.1), physical well-being - chest (73.8 ± 16.1), and physical well-being - abdomen (73.3 ± 17.4). PROs were not statistically different from published multicenter data with the exception of superior scores in sexual well-being (P < 0.05) and breast satisfaction (P < 0.0001). Satisfaction with outcome varied by patient age and was 20.7 points higher for patients over 55 compared to patients 46 to 55 years of age (P < 0.05). Satisfaction with breasts was 29 points lower after total flap loss (P < 0.005). Psychosocial well-being scores were 26.98 points lower after a takeback (P < 0.05). Sexual well-being and physical well-being - chest scores were negatively related to increasing body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: DIEP flap breast reconstruction can be performed with high quality and excellent PROs at a community hospital by surgeons without microvascular fellowship training.
Background: Microsurgical breast reconstruction is typically performed at large, academic centers by fellowship-trained surgeons. This study examines surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction at a community hospital by surgeons without fellowship training. Methods: A prospective clinical database and BREAST-Q results were obtained from 33 patients after 45 DIEP flaps performed between 2016 and 2020. PROs and complications were compared to normative data and multi-institutional series. Regression analysis of patient and surgical factors with BREAST-Q scores was performed. Results: Thirty-one patients completed BREAST-Q (response rate = 94%). Overall flap survival was 97.8%. Complications were not statistically different from larger published series (P > 0.05). Patients reported excellent outcomes after breast reconstruction: satisfaction with breasts (80.6 ± 4.3), satisfaction with outcome (88.3 ±17.7), psychosocial well-being (80.74 ± 17.4), sexual well-being (68.2 ± 24.1), physical well-being - chest (73.8 ± 16.1), and physical well-being - abdomen (73.3 ± 17.4). PROs were not statistically different from published multicenter data with the exception of superior scores in sexual well-being (P < 0.05) and breast satisfaction (P < 0.0001). Satisfaction with outcome varied by patient age and was 20.7 points higher for patients over 55 compared to patients 46 to 55 years of age (P < 0.05). Satisfaction with breasts was 29 points lower after total flap loss (P < 0.005). Psychosocial well-being scores were 26.98 points lower after a takeback (P < 0.05). Sexual well-being and physical well-being - chest scores were negatively related to increasing body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: DIEP flap breast reconstruction can be performed with high quality and excellent PROs at a community hospital by surgeons without microvascular fellowship training.
Authors: Jeffrey A Gusenoff; Stephen J Vega; Shao Jiang; Amir B Behnam; Hani Sbitany; H Raul Herrera; Andrew Smith; Joseph M Serletti Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.730
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
Authors: Neil Tanna; John L Clayton; Jason Roostaeian; Adam D Perry; Christopher A Crisera Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Nikki Beudeker; Inge Smits; Renske Spierings; Thomas Rijntalder; Pieter S Verduijn; Thijs de Wit; Marc A Mureau; Hinne A Rakhorst Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Jonas A Nelson; Robert J Allen; Thais Polanco; Meghana Shamsunder; Aadit R Patel; Colleen M McCarthy; Evan Matros; Joseph H Dayan; Joseph J Disa; Peter G Cordeiro; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Stefan O P Hofer; Tim H C Damen; Marc A M Mureau; Hinne A Rakhorst; Nathalie A Roche Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Alfred P Yoon; Ji Qi; David L Brown; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Jessica Erdmann-Sager; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: Breast Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 4.380
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