J Reconstr Microsurg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2491-3110
Original Article

Oncoplastic Surgery with Volume Replacement versus Mastectomy with Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Early Post-operative Complications in Patients with Breast Cancer

Gabriel De la Cruz Ku
1   Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN12262)
,
Anshumi Desai
2   Plastic Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN12235)
,
Meera Singhal
3   Tufts Medical Center, Boston, United States Minor Outlying Islands (Ringgold ID: RIN1867)
,
Michael Mallouh
4   UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN12262)
,
Caroline King
5   General Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN1867)
,
Alexis Narvaez
6   University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN12235)
,
Sarah Persing
7   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN1867)
,
Christopher Homsy
7   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN1867)
,
Abhishek Chatterjee
8   Tufts Medical Center, Boston, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN1867)
,
Salvatore Nardello
9   Surgical Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN1867)
› Institutsangaben

Background: Two common surgical approaches for breast cancer are breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy with implant-based breast reconstruction (MIBR). However, for large tumors, an alternative to MIBR is oncoplastic surgery with volume replacement (OPSVR). We performed a comprehensive analysis comparing OPSVR with MIBR, with our aim to focus on the 30-days post-operative complications between these two techniques. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2020. Only breast cancer patients were included and were divided according to the surgical technique: OPSVR and MIBR. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent risk factors for total, surgical, and wound complications. Results: A cohort of 8,403 breast cancer patients was analyzed. 683 underwent OPSVR and 7,720 underwent MIBR. From 2005 to 2020, the adoption of OPSVR gradually increased over the years (p<0.001), whereas MIBR decreased. OPSVR patients were older (57.04 vs. 51.89 years, p<0.001), exhibited a higher BMI (31.73 vs. 26.93, p<0.001), had a greater prevalence of diabetes mellitus (11.0% vs. 5.0%, p<0.001). They also had a higher ASA classification (2.33 vs. 2.15, p<0.001), shorter operative time (173.39 vs. 216.20 min, p<0.001), and a higher proportion of outpatient procedures (83.7% vs 39.5%, p<0.001). Outcome analysis demonstrated fewer total complications in the OPSVR patients, (4.2% vs. 10.9%, p<0.001), including lower rates of surgical complications (2.2% vs 8.0%, p<0.001) and wound complications (1.9% vs. 4.8%, p=0.005) compared to MIBR patients. Multivariate analysis identified OPSVR as an independent protective factor for total, surgical, and wound complications. Conclusion: OPSVR has become a favorable technique for patients with breast cancer. Even in patients with higher comorbidities, OPSVR demonstrates safe and better outcomes when compared to MIBR. It should be considered a reasonable and safe breast surgical option in the appropriate patient.



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 21. Juli 2024

Angenommen nach Revision: 23. November 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
28. November 2024

© . Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor , NY 10001 New York, USA