PDF herunterladen
J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35(08): 594-601
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688719
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Immediate Bilateral Breast Reconstruction Using Abdominally Based Flaps: An Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database

Kathleen A. Holoyda
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Andrew M. Simpson 
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Xiangyang Ye
2   Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Jayant P. Agarwal
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Alvin C. Kwok
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

08. November 2018

17. März 2019

Publikationsdatum:
10. Mai 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Bilateral mastectomy rates are increasing in the United States. The abdomen is the most common harvest site for autologous reconstruction. Nationwide data were examined to determine differences in hospital charges, length of stay (LOS), and early postoperative complications following immediate bilateral pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (pTRAM), free TRAM (fTRAM), deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP), and superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) perforator flaps and were compared with unilateral reconstruction.

Methods Patients who underwent immediate bilateral breast reconstruction using a single method of abdominally based reconstruction were identified using the 2009 to 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database. Outcomes included total hospital charges, LOS, and immediate postoperative complications.

Results We identified 13,348 cases of bilateral mastectomy with a single type of immediate bilateral autologous flap reconstruction. The majority were bilateral DIEP flaps. Mean total cost for bilateral pTRAM, fTRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps was US $21,886.80, US $28,839.40, US $30,051.30, and US $33,784.90, respectively (p < 0.0001). Mean LOS for bilateral pTRAM, fTRAM, DIEP, and SIEA was 4.3, 4.9, 4.5, and 5.4 days, respectively (p = 0.0002), and hematoma rates were 1.93, 2.61, 3.68, and 16.59%, respectively, (p = 0.0001), whereas return to the operating room for vascular anastomosis revision was 0, 1.63, 1.99, and 19.07%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Cost is less for unilateral pTRAM, fTRAM, and DIEP flaps (p < 0.0001). LOS is shorter for unilateral fTRAM versus bilateral (p < 0.0001). No differences were appreciated between unilateral and bilateral hematoma and reoperation rates for any reconstruction (p > 0.1).

Conclusion Immediate complication rates were higher in bilateral free flaps compared with bilateral pedicled flaps. pTRAM and fTRAM flap reconstructions are still performed frequently with acceptable immediate results without considering long-term morbidity, aesthetics, and abdominal muscle function. Bilateral SIEA free flaps were associated with significantly higher total cost, LOS, and complication rates compared with other groups. Complications were similar between unilateral and bilateral reconstruction procedures. While cost is significantly greater for bilateral procedures compared with unilateral pTRAM, fTRAM, and DIEP flaps, it is not doubled.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - autologous - bilateral
 

  • References

  • 1 American Cancer Society. How Common is Breast Cancer?. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html . Accessed September 24, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 2015; 150 (01) 9-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Conference NC. NIH consensus conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 1991; 265 (03) 391-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Mahmood U, Hanlon AL, Koshy M. , et al. Increasing national mastectomy rates for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20 (05) 1436-1443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dragun AE, Pan J, Riley EC. , et al. Increasing use of elective mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic surgery among breast conservation candidates: a 14-year report from a comprehensive cancer center. Am J Clin Oncol 2013; 36 (04) 375-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Razdan SN, Cordeiro PG, Albornoz CR. , et al. National breast reconstruction utilization in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (05) 312-317
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cemal Y, Albornoz CR, Disa JJ. , et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: part 2. The influence of changing mastectomy patterns on reconstructive rate and method. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (03) 320e-326e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Metcalfe KA, Zhong T, Narod SA. , et al. A prospective study of mastectomy patients with and without delayed breast reconstruction: long-term psychosocial functioning in the breast cancer survivorship period. J Surg Oncol 2015; 111 (03) 258-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zhong T, McCarthy C, Min S. , et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer 2012; 118 (06) 1701-1709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pusic AL, Matros E, Fine N. , et al. Patient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (22) 2499-2506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Scheflan M, Hartrampf CR, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69 (05) 908-909
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Overview of the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS). Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoreview.jsp2018 . Accessed 8 November 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Producing National Estimates. Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/nationalestimates/508_course/508course_2018.jsp 2019 . Accessed October 18, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). HCUP Online Tutorial Series. Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/tutorials.jsp 2018 . Accessed November 8, 2018
    PubMed
  • 15 Kwok AC, Simpson AM, Ye X, Tatro E, Agarwal JP. Immediate unilateral breast reconstruction using abdominally based flaps: analysis of 3,310 cases. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (01) 74-82
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schoenfeld AJ, Wahlquist TC. Mortality, complication risk, and total charges after the treatment of epidural abscess. Spine J 2015; 15 (02) 249-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lee MK, Yen SL, Allareddy V. Hospitalization outcomes of cleft lip repair in neonates across the United States. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018; 55 (04) 528-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wasif N, Etzioni DA, Habermann EB. , et al. Does improved mortality at low- and medium- volume hospitals lead to attenuation of the volume to outcomes relationship for major visceral surgery?. J Am Coll Surg 2018; 227 (01) 85-93.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (06) 613-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Kim HM, Lowery JC. Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (07) 2265-2274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Edsander-Nord A, Jurell G, Wickman M. Donor-site morbidity after pedicled or free TRAM flap surgery: a prospective and objective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102 (05) 1508-1516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Grotting JC, Urist MM, Maddox WA, Vasconez LO. Conventional TRAM flap versus free microsurgical TRAM flap for immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83 (05) 828-841 , discussion 842–844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Larson DL, Yousif NJ, Sinha RK, Latoni J, Korkos TG. A comparison of pedicled and free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction in a single institution. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104 (03) 674-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nahabedian MY, Dooley W, Singh N, Manson PN. Contour abnormalities of the abdomen after breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps: the role of muscle preservation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (01) 91-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Serletti JM, Moran SL. Free versus the pedicled TRAM flap: a cost comparison and outcome analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100 (06) 1418-1424 , discussion 1425–1427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pien I, Caccavale S, Cheung MC. , et al. Evolving trends in autologous breast reconstruction: is the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap taking over?. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (05) 489-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Albornoz CR, Cordeiro PG, Mehrara BJ. , et al. Economic implications of recent trends in U.S. immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (03) 463-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kropf N, Reavey P, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. Abdominal morbidity following TRAM flap breast reconstruction--patient-reported outcome measures [in German]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2009; 41 (06) 374-377
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kwok AC, Edwards K, Donato DP. , et al. Operative time and flap failure in unilateral and bilateral free flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (06) 428-435
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Andree C, Langer S, Seidenstuecker K. , et al. A single center prospective study of bilateral breast reconstruction with free abdominal flaps: a critical analyses of 144 patients. Med Sci Monit 2013; 19: 467-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bach AD, Kneser U, Kopp J, Andree C, Horch RE. Possibilities for breast reconstruction following cancer surgery [article in German]. MMW Fortschr Med 2004; 146 (42) 40-42 , 44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Albornoz CR, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. , et al. Diminishing relative contraindications for immediate breast reconstruction: a multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 219 (04) 788-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Clemens MW, Kronowitz SJ. Current perspectives on radiation therapy in autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2015; 4 (03) 222-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rosenberg SM, Greaney ML, Patenaude AF, Sepucha KR, Meyer ME, Partridge AH. “I don't want to take chances.”: a qualitative exploration of surgical decision making in young breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology 2018; 27 (06) 1524-1529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ager B, Butow P, Jansen J, Phillips KA, Porter D. ; CPM DA Advisory Group. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM): a systematic review of patient reported factors and psychological predictors influencing choice and satisfaction. Breast 2016; 28: 107-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Centers NAPBC Breast Cancer Standards Manual. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Yang RL, Newman AS, Lin IC. , et al. Trends in immediate breast reconstruction across insurance groups after enactment of breast cancer legislation. Cancer 2013; 119 (13) 2462-2468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Total Charges. Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/vars/totchg/nisnote.jsp 2018 . Accessed January 29, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar