Outcomes Following Breast Reconstruction in Patients With Prior Mantle Radiation for Treatment of Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: External beam radiation in the mantle field has been a mainstay of therapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma for decades. The incidence of breast cancer in patients treated with mantle radiation is known to be elevated. Few studies have examined outcomes of breast reconstruction in this high-risk group. The current study presents the largest series of immediate breast reconstruction in this population and aims to evaluate reconstructive outcomes and examine differences between implant-based and autologous reconstructions. METHODS: A retrospective review of records from a 10-year period at 2 institutions was undertaken. Patients treated with mantle radiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma who subsequently underwent mastectomy with immediate reconstruction were identified. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes including complications and operative revisions were gathered. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess differences between implant-based and autologous reconstructions. RESULTS: A total of 97 breast reconstructions were performed in 52 patients. Seventy-nine reconstructions were implant-based, and 18 were autologous. Patients with implant-based reconstructions were older than autologous reconstructions (47 ± 8.8 years vs 42 ± 6.5 years, P < 0.05). Both groups had long-term follow-up; however, the mean follow-up duration was shorter in the implant-based compared with the autologous group (5 years vs 8.3 years; P < 0.05). Otherwise, the groups were similar with respect to BMI, medical comorbidities, oncologic diagnosis, and therapy. The interval between mantle radiation and reconstruction was comparable for implant-based and autologous groups (23.4 ± 9 years vs 21.3 ± 6.1 years, P = 0.6). The overall complication rate of breast reconstruction was not statistically different between the implant-based and autologous groups (35% vs 16%, P = 0.16). Three implant-based reconstructions (3.7%) required explantation. There were no complete flap losses in the autologous group. An associated 6-fold higher rate of unplanned revisions was observed with the autologous reconstruction group compared with the implant-based reconstruction group (odds ratio, 6.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-32.48; P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, long-term follow-up suggests immediate breast reconstruction in patients with prior mantle radiation can be achieved safely with an acceptable complication profile utilizing either implant-based or autologous techniques. Autologous breast reconstruction is linked with a higher rate of revisions compared with implant-based breast reconstruction in this study population.

Impact of Unilateral versus Bilateral Breast Reconstruction on Procedure Choices and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In choosing between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction, surgeons and patients must weigh relative risks and benefits. However, differences in outcomes across procedure types may vary between unilateral versus bilateral reconstructions. Procedure-related differences in complications and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated for unilateral and bilateral reconstruction. METHODS: Complications and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q and Patient-Reported Outcomes measurement Information System surveys) were assessed at 2 years for patients undergoing autologous or implant-based reconstructions. Stratified regression models compared outcomes between autologous and implant-based reconstructions, separately for unilateral and bilateral cohorts. RESULTS: Among 2125 patients, 917 underwent unilateral (600 implant and 317 autologous) and 1208 underwent bilateral (994 implant and 214 autologous) reconstructions. Complication rates were significantly higher in the autologous versus implant-based group for both unilateral (overall: OR, 2.50, p < 0.001; major: OR, 2.19, p = 0.001) and bilateral (overall: OR, 2.13, p < 0.001; major: OR, 1.69, p = 0.014) cohorts. In unilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly better patient-reported outcomes versus implant-based group in satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 9.85; p < 0.001), psychosocial well-being (mean difference, 4.84; p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (mean difference, 11.42; p < 0.001). In bilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly higher patient-reported outcomes only for satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 5.13; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although autologous reconstruction is associated with significantly better patient-reported outcomes compared to implant-based techniques in unilateral reconstruction, procedure choice has far less impact in bilateral reconstruction. Autologous procedures have higher complications rates in both unilateral and bilateral settings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Abdominally Based Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal flap reconstruction is the most popular form of autologous breast reconstruction. The current study compared complications and patient-reported outcomes after pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), free TRAM, deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP), and superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flaps. METHODS: Patients undergoing abdominally based breast reconstruction at 11 centers were prospectively evaluated for abdominal donor-site and breast complications. Patient-reported outcomes were measured by the BREAST-Q and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System surveys. Mixed-effects regression models were used to assess the effects of procedure type on outcomes. RESULTS: Seven hundred twenty patients had 1-year follow-up and 587 had 2-year follow-up. Two years after reconstruction, SIEA compared with DIEP flaps were associated with a higher rate of donor-site complications (OR, 2.7; p = 0.001); however, SIEA flaps were associated with higher BREAST-Q abdominal physical well-being scores compared with DIEP flaps at 1 year (mean difference, 4.72, on a scale from 0 to 100; p = 0.053). This difference was not significant at 2 years. Abdominal physical well-being scores at 2 years postoperatively were lower in the pedicled TRAM flap group by 7.2 points (p = 0.006) compared with DIEP flaps and by 7.8 points (p = 0.03) compared with SIEA flaps, and in the free TRAM flap group, scores were lower by 4.9 points (p = 0.04) compared with DIEP flaps. Bilateral reconstruction had significantly lower abdominal physical well-being scores compared with unilateral reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Although all abdominally based flaps are viable breast reconstruction options, DIEP and SIEA flaps are associated with higher abdominal physical well-being than pedicled and free TRAM flaps. Although SIEA flaps offer the advantage of not violating the fascia, higher rates of donor-site complications may diminish patient satisfaction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Late Surgical-Site Infection in Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Surgical-site infection causes devastating reconstructive failure in implant-based breast reconstructions. Large national database studies offer insights into complication rates, but only capture outcomes within 30 days postoperatively. This study evaluates both early and late surgical-site infection in immediate implant-based reconstruction and identifies predictors. METHODS: As part of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study, 1662 implant-based breast reconstructions in 1024 patients were evaluated for early versus late surgical-site infection. Early surgical-site infection was defined as infection occurring within 30 days postoperatively; late surgical-site infection was defined as infection occurring 31 days to 1 year postoperatively. Minor infection required oral antibiotics only, and major infection required hospitalization and/or surgical treatment. Direct-to-implant patients had 1-year follow-up, and tissue expander patients had 1-year post-exchange follow-up. RESULTS: Among 1491 tissue expander and 171 direct-to-implant reconstructions, overall surgical-site infection rate for tissue expander was 5.7 percent (85 of 1491) after first-stage, 2.5 percent (31 of 1266) after second-stage, and 9.9 percent (17 of 171) for direct-to-implant reconstruction. Over 47 to 71 percent of surgical-site infection complications were late surgical-site infection. Multivariate analysis identified radiotherapy and increasing body mass index as significant predictors of late surgical-site infection. No significant difference between the direct-to-implant and tissue expander groups in the occurrence of early, late, or overall surgical-site infection was found. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surgical-site infection complications in immediate implant-based breast reconstructions occur more than 30 days after both first-stage and second-stage procedures. Radiotherapy and obesity are significantly associated with late-onset surgical-site infection. Current studies limited to early complications do not present a complete assessment of infection associated with implant-based breast reconstructions or their long-term clinical outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Predictors of Complications and Comparison of Outcomes Using SurgiMend Fetal Bovine and AlloDerm Human Cadaveric Acellular Dermal Matrices in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix is one of the most common procedures performed by plastic surgeons. Although numerous matrices are available, there is little literature comparing them. This study compares the rates of complications between two commonly used products: AlloDerm (human cadaveric) and SurgiMend (fetal bovine) acellular dermal matrices. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single center's 6-year experience was performed for consecutive, immediate breast reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix from 2009 to 2014. The authors compared demographics and surgical characteristics between patients receiving AlloDerm versus SurgiMend. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine any association between type of matrix and surgical complications and to identify other clinical predictors for complications. RESULTS: A total of 640 patients underwent 952 reconstructions using AlloDerm [578 breasts (61 percent)] or SurgiMend [374 breasts (39 percent)]. The average follow-up was 587 days. Multivariate analysis revealed that type of matrix was not an independent risk factor for the development of complications. However, smoking, age, radiotherapy, and initial tissue expander fill volume were associated with increased risk of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Both AlloDerm and SurgiMend acellular dermal matrices demonstrate similar rates of major complications when used in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. In contrast, preoperative radiation therapy, smoking, increasing age, and initial tissue expander fill volume are independent risk factors for postoperative complications. Reconstructive surgeons should take these findings into consideration when performing implant-based breast reconstruction with a dermal matrix.