Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024
Long-Term Outcomes of 1989 Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstructions: An Analysis of Risk Factors for Failure and Revision Surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kooijman Merel M L, van Bommel Annelotte C M, van Duijnhoven Frederieke H, Scholten Astrid N, Smorenburg Carolien H, Woerdeman Leonie A E, Breugem Corstiaan C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is potentially associated with long-term unfavorable outcomes, such as revision surgery and reconstruction failure. This large patient cohort study aimed to provide long-term data on the incidence of these outcomes and to identify predictive risk factors.
METHODS: Between 2012 and 2019, 1989 mastectomies with IBR were performed in 1512 women in the authors' institute. A direct-to-implant method was used in 93% and a 2-staged method with tissue expander in 7%. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient- and treatment-related risk factors associated with revision surgery or reconstructive failure.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 62.2 months. IBR failed in 6.7% of all breasts; thus, a breast was present in 93.3%. Age older than 44 years yielded a 2.6-fold, and radiotherapy, a 1.7-fold increased risk for reconstruction failure. Revision surgery was performed in 60% of all breasts. The mean number of revisions of all IBRs was 1.2 (range, 0 to 8; SD, 1.37). Factors associated with significantly higher rates of revision surgery were age older than 44 years (OR, 1.23), smoking (OR, 1.53), specimen weight greater than 492 g (OR, 1.39), implant volume greater than 422 g (OR, 1.95), and radiotherapy (OR, 1.51). Nipple preservation was protective for both outcomes (OR, 0.71 and 0.42, respectively). Direct-to-implant procedures did not require any surgical revision in 43% of these patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the necessity of revision surgery in the majority of IBRs, nearly half of the breasts did not require any revision surgery, and long-term reconstruction failure rates are extremely low. Therefore, IBR should be offered to all eligible women undergoing mastectomy, while understanding the risks.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
METHODS: Between 2012 and 2019, 1989 mastectomies with IBR were performed in 1512 women in the authors' institute. A direct-to-implant method was used in 93% and a 2-staged method with tissue expander in 7%. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient- and treatment-related risk factors associated with revision surgery or reconstructive failure.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 62.2 months. IBR failed in 6.7% of all breasts; thus, a breast was present in 93.3%. Age older than 44 years yielded a 2.6-fold, and radiotherapy, a 1.7-fold increased risk for reconstruction failure. Revision surgery was performed in 60% of all breasts. The mean number of revisions of all IBRs was 1.2 (range, 0 to 8; SD, 1.37). Factors associated with significantly higher rates of revision surgery were age older than 44 years (OR, 1.23), smoking (OR, 1.53), specimen weight greater than 492 g (OR, 1.39), implant volume greater than 422 g (OR, 1.95), and radiotherapy (OR, 1.51). Nipple preservation was protective for both outcomes (OR, 0.71 and 0.42, respectively). Direct-to-implant procedures did not require any surgical revision in 43% of these patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the necessity of revision surgery in the majority of IBRs, nearly half of the breasts did not require any revision surgery, and long-term reconstruction failure rates are extremely low. Therefore, IBR should be offered to all eligible women undergoing mastectomy, while understanding the risks.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.