Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Clinical trial

Complications following immediate compared to delayed deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstructions

Authors: J. Beugels, L. Bod, S. M. J. van Kuijk, S. S. Qiu, S. M. H. Tuinder, E. M. Heuts, A. Piatkowski, R. R. W. J. van der Hulst

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2018

Abstract

Purpose

As more breast cancer patients opt for immediate breast reconstruction, the incidence of complications should be evaluated. The aim of this study was to analyze the recipient-site complications and flap re-explorations of immediate compared to delayed deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstructions.

Methods

For this multicenter retrospective cohort study, the medical records of all patients who underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction in three hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and June 2017 were reviewed. Patient demographics, risk factors, timing of reconstruction, recipient-site complications, and flap re-explorations were recorded.

Results

A total of 910 DIEP flap breast reconstructions (n = 397 immediate and n = 513 delayed reconstructions) in 737 patients were included. There were no significant differences in major complications or flap re-explorations between immediate and delayed reconstructions. The total flap failure rate was 1.5 and 2.5% in the immediate and delayed group, respectively. Significantly more hematomas (OR 2.91; 95% CI 1.59–5.30; p = 0.001) and seromas (OR 3.60; 95% CI 1.14–11.4; p = 0.029) occurred in immediate reconstructions, whereas wound problems were more frequently observed in delayed reconstructions (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.27–3.11; p = 0.003). Correction for potential confounders still showed significant differences for hematoma and seroma, but no longer for wound problems (p = 0.052).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated similar incidences of major recipient-site complications and flap re-explorations between immediate and delayed DIEP flap breast reconstructions. However, hematoma and seroma occurred significantly more often in immediate reconstructions, while wound problems were more frequently observed in delayed reconstructions.

Available only for authorised users

Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, Morris TJ, Virnig BA (2007) Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol 25(33):5203–5209. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.12.3141 CrossRefPubMed

Yao K, Stewart AK, Winchester DJ, Winchester DP (2010) Trends in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral cancer: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 1998–2007. Ann Surg Oncol 17(10):2554–2562. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1091-3 CrossRefPubMed

Boughey JC, Attai DJ, Chen SL, Cody HS, Dietz JR, Feldman SM, Greenberg CC, Kass RB, Landercasper J, Lemaine V, MacNeill F, Song DH, Staley AC, Wilke LG, Willey SC, Yao KA, Margenthaler JA (2016) Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy (CPM) Consensus Statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: Data on CPM Outcomes and Risks. Ann Surg Oncol 23(10):3100–3105. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5443-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Boughey JC, Attai DJ, Chen SL, Cody HS, Dietz JR, Feldman SM, Greenberg CC, Kass RB, Landercasper J, Lemaine V, MacNeill F, Margenthaler JA, Song DH, Staley AC, Wilke LG, Willey SC, Yao KA (2016) Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Consensus Statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: Additional Considerations and a Framework for Shared Decision Making. Ann Surg Oncol 23(10):3106–3111. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5408-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hunt KK, Euhus DM, Boughey JC, Chagpar AB, Feldman SM, Hansen NM, Kulkarni SA, McCready DR, Mamounas EP, Wilke LG, Van Zee KJ, Morrow M (2016) Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Working Group Statement on Prophylactic (Risk-Reducing) Mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5688-z

Farhangkhoee H, Matros E, Disa J (2016) Trends and concepts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. J Surg Oncol 113(8):891–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24201 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, Matros E (2013) A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(1):15–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cde CrossRefPubMed

Cemal Y, Albornoz CR, Disa JJ, McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL, Cordeiro PG, Matros E (2013) A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: part 2. The influence of changing mastectomy patterns on reconstructive rate and method. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(3):320e–326e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31827cf576 CrossRefPubMed

Abbott A, Rueth N, Pappas-Varco S, Kuntz K, Kerr E, Tuttle T (2011) Perceptions of contralateral breast cancer: an overestimation of risk. Ann Surg Oncol 18(11):3129–3136. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1914-x CrossRefPubMed

10.

Crosby MA, Garvey PB, Selber JC, Adelman DM, Sacks JM, Villa MT, Lin HY, Park SJ, Baumann DP (2011) Reconstructive outcomes in patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(5):1025–1033. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31822b6682 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Jagsi R, Jiang J, Momoh AO, Alderman A, Giordano SH, Buchholz TA, Kronowitz SJ, Smith BD (2014) Trends and variation in use of breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy in the United States. J Clin Oncol 32(9):919–926. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.52.2284 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Nelson JA, Tchou J, Domchek S, Sonnad SS, Serletti JM, Wu LC (2012) Breast reconstruction in bilateral prophylactic mastectomy patients: factors that influence decision making. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65(11):1481–1489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.05.001 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Alderman AK, Storey AF, Nair NS, Chung KC (2009) Financial impact of breast reconstruction on an academic surgical practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 123(5):1408–1413. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a0722d CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Dasari CR, Gunther S, Wisner DH, Cooke DT, Gold CK, Wong MS (2015) Rise in microsurgical free-flap breast reconstruction in academic medical practices. Ann Plast Surg 74(Suppl 1):S62–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000483 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T, Nyame TT, Gautam S, Morris DJ, Tobias AM, Lee BT (2010) Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(6):1585–1595. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181cb6351 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hu ES, Pusic AL, Waljee JF, Kuhn L, Hawley ST, Wilkins E, Alderman AK (2009) Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship Period. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ab10b2 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Allen RJ, Treece P (1994) Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 32(1):32–38CrossRefPubMed

18.

Healy C, Allen RJ Sr (2014) The evolution of perforator flap breast reconstruction: twenty years after the first DIEP flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 30(2):121–125. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1357272 PubMed

19.

El-Sabawi B, Carey JN, Hagopian TM, Sbitany H, Patel KM (2016) Radiation and breast reconstruction: algorithmic approach and evidence-based outcomes. J Surg Oncol 113(8):906–912. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24143 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rogers NE, Allen RJ (2002) Radiation effects on breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(6):1919–1924; discussion 1925–1916

21.

Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL (2009) Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(2):395–408. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee987 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kronowitz SJ (2012) Current status of autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(2):282–292. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182589be1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Neyt MJ, Blondeel PN, Morrison CM, Albrecht JA (2005) Comparing the cost of delayed and immediate autologous breast reconstruction in Belgium. Br J Plast Surg 58(4):493–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2004.12.002 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Zhong T, Hu J, Bagher S, Vo A, O’Neill AC, Butler K, Novak CB, Hofer SO, Metcalfe KA (2016) A comparison of psychological response, body image, sexuality, and quality of life between immediate and delayed autologous tissue breast reconstruction: a prospective long-term outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 138(4):772–780. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002536 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Habermann EB, Thomsen KM, Hieken TJ, Boughey JC (2014) Impact of availability of immediate breast reconstruction on bilateral mastectomy rates for breast cancer across the United States: data from the nationwide inpatient sample. Ann Surg Oncol 21(10):3290–3296. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3924-y CrossRefPubMed

26.

Nelson JA, Fischer JP, Radecki MA, Pasick C, McGrath J, Serletti JM, Wu LC (2013) Delayed autologous breast reconstruction: factors which influence patient decision making. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(11):1513–1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2013.06.020 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Beugels J, Hoekstra LT, Tuinder SM, Heuts EM, van der Hulst RR, Piatkowski AA (2016) Complications in unilateral versus bilateral deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstructions: a multicentre study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(9):1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.04.010 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Chang EI, Chang EI, Soto-Miranda MA, Zhang H, Nosrati N, Ghali S, Chang DW (2015) Evolution of bilateral free flap breast reconstruction over 10 years: optimizing outcomes and comparison to unilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):946e–953e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001233 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Ochoa O, Chrysopoulo M, Nastala C, Ledoux P, Pisano S (2012) Abdominal wall stability and flap complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: does body mass index make a difference? Analysis of 418 patients and 639 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(1):21e–33e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182547d09 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Lam G, Weichman KE, Reavey PL, Wilson SC, Levine JP, Saadeh PB, Allen RJ, Choi M, Karp NS, Thanik VD (2017) Analysis of Flap weight and postoperative complications based on flap weight in patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 33(3):186–193. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1594298 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Complications following immediate compared to delayed deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstructions
Authors: J. Beugels
L. Bod
S. M. J. van Kuijk
S. S. Qiu
S. M. H. Tuinder
E. M. Heuts
A. Piatkowski
R. R. W. J. van der Hulst
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4695-0

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

A high-risk 70-gene signature is not associated with the detection of tumor cell dissemination to the bone marrow

A retrospective prognostic evaluation analysis using the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer

A novel patient-derived xenograft model for claudin-low triple-negative breast cancer

A comprehensive tool for measuring mammographic density changes over time

The frequency of missed breast cancers in women participating in a high-risk MRI screening program

Refined estimates of local recurrence risks by DCIS score adjusting for clinicopathological features: a combined analysis of ECOG-ACRIN E5194 and Ontario DCIS cohort studies

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer