Proton therapy improves postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) normal tissue sparing compared with photon techniques. However, little is understood about its effect on reconstruction outcomes. The primary objective was to evaluate complication rates in breast cancer patients treated with proton (PRO) versus photon (PHO) PMRT following immediate, implant-based breast reconstruction. Consecutive patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with a tissue expander (TE) or permanent implant (PI) and PRO or PHO PMRT between 2011 and 2022 were included from two institutions. Complication rate was defined as the sum of reconstruction failure (explantation without replacement), unplanned prosthesis exchange, and other unplanned revisional surgery. Each complication type was analyzed as an independent endpoint. Among 733 patients, median follow-up was 4.4 years; 36.5% (267) were treated with PRO and 63.5% (466) with PHO. There was no difference in age, BMI, or comorbidities between the two groups. PRO was more likely to have had, two-stage reconstruction and pre-pectoral implant placement (p<.01). Median dose was 50-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions, with only 50 receiving hypofractionation. Bolus was used in all PHO patients. Regional nodes were more likely to be included in PRO (99.6% v. 83.7% PHO, p<.01). Although there was no difference in the use of chest wall boost between groups, the axillary nodes were more frequently boosted in PRO (25.1% vs 2.8% PHO, p<.01). The overall rate of complications at 4 years was 26.7% (95% CI = 23.3-30.5). The 4-year rate of reconstruction failure, unplanned exchange, and other surgery was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.3-10.7), 17.4% (95% CI = 14.6-20.8), and 12.5% (95% CI = 10.1-15.5), respectively. On MVA, PRO did not confer an increased risk of reconstruction complications compared to PHO. Significant risk factors for reconstruction failure included TE-to-autologous approach [HR versus direct-to-implant reference: 4.05 (95% CI = 1.60-10.22)], TE-to-permanent implant approach [HR = 2.06 (95% CI = 1.12-3.79)], chest wall boost [HR = 2.20 (95% CI = 1.21-4.02)], and any lymph node boost [HR = 2.33 (95% CI = 1.10-4.97)]. Compared to direct-to-implant, two-stage reconstruction was also associated with a higher rate of unplanned exchange [HR for TE/PI = 1.49 (95% CI = 1.01-2.20)] and revisional surgery [HR for TE-to-autologous = 3.95 (95% CI = 1.64-9.52)]. Prepectoral implant placement was correlated with reduced risk of revisional surgery, relative to subpectoral placement [HR = 0.42 (95% CI = 0.22-0.81)]. This represents the largest combined series to date comparing PRO and PHO PMRT. Despite a higher rate of two-stage reconstruction, nodal irradiation, and nodal boost in PRO, there was no significant difference in the risk of complications between protons and photons. Differences in PRO delivery techniques between institutions and dosimetric details such as skin dose will be presented in person.