Type Of Breast Reconstruction Research Articles

Types of Breast Cancer Surgery and Breast Reconstruction.

Background: Breast cancer continues to be a significant diagnostic and therapeutic problem. Mastectomy is still a frequently used treatment method, but its form is changing with progress in medicine. Methods: We have described important types of surgical treatments for breast cancer, such as modified radical mastectomy, breast-conserving surgery, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, and robotic mastectomy. Breast reconstruction is also a very important element of treatment because it directly affects the mental state of patients after the procedure. We have also described types of breast reconstruction, such as implants, acellular dermal matrices, autologous reconstruction, robotic breast reconstruction, and fat grafting. Results: The aim of our study was to compare available types of surgical treatment for breast cancer and breast reconstruction to help tailor personalized treatment to patients.

Timing and type of breast reconstruction in SweBRO 3: long-term outcomes.

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy helps women with breast cancer feel better about their bodies and lives. There is debate about the best time and type of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed, and using own tissue versus implants). Long-term studies are rare. This study looked at long-term results of different breast reconstruction methods and timings in Swedish women who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. It focused on how satisfied the women were with their surgeries and their quality of life. The study included 5853 women from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Registry who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. Of these, 2904 women answered the survey, and 895 had breast reconstruction. Satisfaction and quality of life were measured using two surveys: EORTC QLQ-BRECON23 and BREAST-Q. Of the women who answered the survey, 895 (31%) had breast reconstruction. Of these, 176 (20%) had immediate reconstruction, and 719 (80%) had delayed reconstruction; 58% had implant-based reconstructions, 31% had reconstructions using their own tissue, 2% had both types and 9% did not report the type of reconstruction. There were no major differences in satisfaction between immediate and delayed reconstruction. Women who used their own tissue were more satisfied with their results and breast appearance than those with implants. Autologous reconstruction leads to better satisfaction and outcomes than implants. The timing of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed) was less of an influence on quality of life.

Evaluation of cosmetic outcomes in breast reconstruction patients undergoing radiotherapy using an anomaly generative adversarial network model

Considering the rising prevalence of breast reconstruction followed by radiotherapy (RT), evaluating the cosmetic impact of RT is crucial. Currently, there are limited tools for objectively assessing cosmetic outcomes in patients who have undergone reconstruction. Therefore, we validated the cosmetic outcome using a previously developed anomaly Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)-based model and evaluated its utility. Between January 2016 and December 2020, we collected computed tomography (CT) images from 82 breast cancer patients who underwent immediate reconstruction surgery followed by radiotherapy. Among these patients, 38 received immediate implant insertion, while 44 underwent autologous breast reconstruction. Anomaly scores (AS) were estimated using an anomaly GAN model at pre-RT, 1st follow-up, 1-year (Post-1Y) and 2-year (Post-2Y) after RT. Subsequently, the scores were analyzed in a time-series manner, considering reconstruction types (implant versus autologous), RT techniques, and the incidence of major complications. The median age of the patients was 46 years (range 29–62). The AS between Post-1Y and Post-2Y demonstrated a positive relationship (coefficient 0.515, P < 0.001). The AS was significantly associated with objective cosmetic indices, namely Breast Contour Difference (P = 0.009) and Breast Area Difference (P = 0.004), at both Post-1Y and Post-2Y. Subgroup analysis stratified by type of breast reconstruction revealed significantly higher AS values in patients who underwent prosthetic implant insertion compared to those with autologous reconstruction at all follow-up time points (1st follow-up, P = 0.001; Post-1Y, P < 0.001; and Post-2Y, P < 0.001). A threshold AS of ≥ 1.9 was associated with a 10% predicted risk of developing major complications. The feasibility of an AS generated by a GAN model for predicting both cosmetic outcomes and the likelihood of complications following RT has been successfully validated. Further investigation involving a larger patient cohort is warranted.

National trends in revision procedures in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: Autologous vs implant-based approaches

BackgroundBreast reconstruction involves collaborative decision-making between patients and surgeons, but the need for multiple revisions after the initial reconstructive surgery process can burden patients and the healthcare system. This study explored how the type of breast reconstruction (autologous [ABR], immediate implant-based reconstruction [IBR], or two-stage IBR) impacts postreconstruction revision rates. MethodUsing MarketScan Databases, a retrospective database study (2007–2021) was conducted, identifying revision procedures through Current Procedural Terminology codes. Statistical analysis with linear models, adjusted for patient characteristics and surgical factors, used a significance threshold of p < 0.05. ResultsAmong 58,264 patients, 6.2% of ABR patients, 3.8% of immediate IBR patients, and 3.6% of two-stage IBR patients underwent future revisions. IBR had a 51% lower incidence rate of revision operations than ABR (incidence rate ratio = 0.49, p < 0.001). Within IBR, there was no significant difference in the number of operations between immediate IBR (0.06 ± 0.32) and two-stage IBR (0.05 ± 0.32, p = 0.95). Immediate IBR demonstrated 12% (OR = 0.88, p = 0.0022) and 70% (OR = 0.30, p < 0.001) lower odds of requiring breast revision and fat grafting compared to ABR, respectively. Two-stage reconstruction had 66 % lower odds of requiring only fat grafting than ABR (OR = 0.34, p < 0.001). ConclusionABR necessitated a higher number of total revision procedures after completion of the initial reconstruction. These findings will better equip providers and patients to counsel patients in understanding their reconstructive journey, planning their reconstructions and timing, and provide more accurate estimates of the number of procedures that will be required to reach their aesthetic goals and final outcome.

Disparities in Breast Reconstruction: An Analysis of Treatment Choices.

Breast reconstruction methods vary based on factors such as medical history, breast size, and personal preferences. However, disparities in healthcare exist, and the role race plays in accessing to different reconstruction methods is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the influence of race and/or ethnicity on the type of breast reconstruction chosen. This retrospective cohort study analyzed the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Magee Women's Hospital database, including patients who underwent breast cancer surgery from 2011 to 2022. Multivariate analysis examined race, reconstruction, and reconstruction type (P < 0.05). The database included 13,260 women with breast cancer; of whom 1763 underwent breast reconstruction. We found that 91.8% of patients were White, 6.8% Black, and 1.24% were of other races (Asian, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, unknown). Reconstruction types were 46.8% implant, 30.1% autologous, and 18.7% combined. Among Black patients, autologous 36.3%, implant 32.2%, and combined 26.4%. In White patients, autologous 29.5%, implant 48%, and combined 18.2%. Among other races, autologous 36.3%, implant 40.9%, and combined 22.7%. In patients who underwent breast reconstruction, 85.2% underwent unilateral and 14.7% of patients underwent bilateral. Among the patients who had bilateral reconstruction, 92.3% were White, 6.1% were Black, and 1.5% were of other ethnicities. Our analysis revealed differences in breast reconstruction methods. Autologous reconstruction was more common among Black patients, and implant-based reconstruction was more common among Whites and other races. Further research is needed to understand the cause of these variations.

Narrative review of patient-reported outcomes of breast reconstruction.

The treatment of breast cancer encompasses both the elimination of malignancy as well as reconstruction after tumor extirpation. Although the patient may have had successful treatment of her breast cancer, the resulting disfigurement and deformity can have a substantial impact on her physical and mental well-being. Breast reconstruction affords these patients the opportunity to correct these deformities and potentially to improve their quality of life. The current literature review evaluates patient-reported outcomes for the various options of breast reconstruction that are most commonly performed. A literature review on PubMed with the key words "patient-reported outcomes", "breast reconstruction", and "breast cancer" yielded 738 results, which were screened. Articles that specifically focused on patient-reported outcomes after various types of breast reconstruction were evaluated and included in this literature review. The main options of alloplastic reconstruction, autologous tissue reconstruction, and oncoplastic reconstruction were reviewed and found to demonstrate high levels of patient satisfaction. Although there is no clear superior option, patient-reported outcomes demonstrate improved well-being compared to no reconstruction. Breast reconstruction provides the opportunity to correct the deformities after breast cancer treatment making it a crucial component of comprehensive cancer care. A variety of reconstructive options are available which can be tailored to each individual patient to achieve the optimal results for that particular patient. Therefore patient-reported outcomes are paramount to gauge the true success of not only breast cancer treatment but also reconstructive aspects after treatment.

Current status prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in the USA.

Breast cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women in the United States. In the setting of a mastectomy, implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remains the most common type of breast reconstruction performed. IBR is typically performed in two-stages (tissue expander - implant) or one stage [direct-to-implant (DTI)]. As a consequence of the limitations associated with submuscular placement of implants, prepectoral implant placement has been gaining more acceptance worldwide. The prepectoral plane eliminates the need for chest wall muscle dissection, disinsertion and manipulation avoiding the muscle related complications of the subpectoral approach such as increased pain, spasm and animation deformity. In addition, prepectoral placement shortens the recovery time and provides greater control of breast shape and contour. With the latest generation form-stable silicone implants coupled with the wide use and acceptance of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and other meshes to support the implant, this technique is becoming the mainstay of implant-based reconstruction, under these circumstances the subpectoral technique will continue to be the benchmark to which the prepectoral technique will be compared to. The authors sought to review the literature emanating from North America that pertains to this topic and provide an up-to-date assessment of the current practices of the prepectoral and submuscular technique.

Imaging of the Reconstructed Breast.

The incidence of breast cancer and, therefore, the need for breast reconstruction are expected to increase. The many reconstructive options available and the changing aspects of the field make this a complex area of plastic surgery, requiring knowledge and expertise. Two major types of breast reconstruction can be distinguished: breast implants and autologous flaps. Both present advantages and disadvantages. Autologous fat grafting is also commonly used. MRI is the modality of choice for evaluating breast reconstruction. Knowledge of the type of reconstruction is preferable to provide the maximum amount of pertinent information and avoid false positives. Early complications include seroma, hematoma, and infection. Late complications depend on the type of reconstruction. Implant rupture and implant capsular contracture are frequently encountered. Depending on the implant type, specific MRI signs can be depicted. In the case of myocutaneous flap, fat necrosis, fibrosis, and vascular compromise represent the most common complications. Late cancer recurrence is much less common. Rarely reported late complications include breast-implant-associated large cell anaplastic lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and, recently described and even rarer, breast-implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC). In this review article, the various types of breast reconstruction will be presented, with emphasis on pertinent imaging findings and complications.

Antibiotic Implant Irrigation and Deep Infection: A Retrospective Study of 1508 Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction with Implants.

Antibiotic implant irrigation is increasingly used to prevent deep infection after implant-based breast reconstruction. However, there is limited evidence of the clinical effect. In this study, the authors compare the risk of a deep infection in a Danish population of women who received antibiotic implant irrigation with either gentamicin or vancomycin, or no irrigation. The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing all types of breast reconstruction with implants at Rigshospitalet and Herlev Hospital, Denmark, from 2010 to 2019. Logistic regression was used to compare the risk of deep infection between no irrigation and irrigation with gentamicin or vancomycin, and to account for the difference in risk between patient subgroups and risk factors. The authors included 1508 patients who received antibiotic irrigation with gentamicin (500 patients), vancomycin (304 patients), or no irrigation (704 patients). The univariable risk analysis showed a significant decreased risk of deep infection using gentamicin irrigation compared with no irrigation (OR, 0.58; P < 0.05). However, when adjusting for risk factors for infection, there was no significant decrease in the risk of infection when using gentamicin (OR, 0.90; P = 0.71) or vancomycin (OR, 1.0; P = 0.99) compared with the control group. The authors found no significant effect of using antibiotic implant irrigation after isolating it from risk factors for deep infection. However, because of the limitations of the study, the authors cannot conclude that there is no effect of antibiotic implant irrigation. There is a need for a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect, and potential side-effects, of antibiotic implant irrigation. Risk, II.

Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeon performance and impact on breast reconstructions: Clinical outcomes, learning curve, and patients’ satisfaction

BackgroundCompared to mastectomy alone, the addition of breast reconstruction could improve quality of life and it is usually performed by two-team approach, which consisted of both breast surgeons and plastic surgeons. This study aims to illustrate the positive impacts of the dual-trained oncoplastic reconstructive breast surgeon (ORBS) and reveal the factors influencing reconstruction rates. MethodsThis retrospective study enrolled 542 breast cancer patients who undergone mastectomy with reconstruction performed by a particular ORBS between January 2011 and December 2021 at a single institution. Clinical and oncological outcomes, impact of case accumulation on performance and patient-reported aesthetic satisfactions were analyzed and reported. Furthermore, in this study 1851 breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy combined with or without breast reconstructions, which included 542 performed by ORBS, were reviewed to identify factors affecting breast reconstructions. ResultsAmong the 524 breast reconstructions performed by the ORBS, 73.6% were gel implant reconstructions, 2.7% were tissue expanders, 19.5% were transverse rectus abdominal myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, 2.7% were latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps, 0.8% were omentum flaps, and 0.8% involved LD flaps and implants. There was no total flap loss in the 124 autologous reconstructions, and the implant loss rate was 1.2% (5/403). Patient-reported aesthetic evaluations showed that 95% of the patients were satisfied. As the ORBS's accumulated case experiences, the implant loss rate decreased, and the overall satisfaction rate increased. According to the cumulative sum plot learning curve analysis, it took 58 procedures for the ORBS to shorten the operative time. In multivariate analysis, younger age, MRI, nipple sparing mastectomy, ORBS, and high-volume surgeon were factors related to breast reconstruction. ConclusionThe current study demonstrated that a breast surgeon after adequate training could become an ORBS and perform mastectomies with various types of breast reconstruction with acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes for breast cancer patients. ORBSs could increase breast reconstruction rates, which remain low worldwide.

Satisfacción y calidad de vida de las pacientes mastectomizadas por cáncer de mama según la reconstrucción mamaria

Introduction and objectiveMastectomy and breast reconstruction are procedures that are part of the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. Currently, the BREAST-Q questionnaire is available, which allows objective and numerical determination of the quality of life and satisfaction of patients who have undergone breast surgery. Studies have evaluated the repercussions of post-mastectomy breast reconstruction with inconsistent results, likewise there are no similar investigations in the Peruvian population. The objective of the present study is to determine and compare the level of satisfaction and quality of life in patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction. Material and methodsObservational, analytical cross-sectional study carried out in patients with mastectomies for breast cancer with and without breast reconstruction at the Aliada Oncology Center, Lima-Peru. 46 patients operated between the years 2016-2021 were included. The quality of life and satisfaction of the patients was evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire. ResultsSignificant differences were obtained in the breast satisfaction and sexual well-being scales when comparing mastectomy patients with and without breast reconstruction, where the group with reconstruction reflected a better result in satisfaction and quality of life. No significant results were obtained in the scales of attention of the medical team, adverse events of radiation and according to the type of breast reconstruction. ConclusionsThe BREAST-Q instrument showed that patients undergoing breast reconstruction obtained better results on the satisfaction and quality of life scales compared to patients without breast reconstruction.

BREAST-Q Patient-reported Outcomes in Different Types of Breast Reconstruction after Fat Grafting.

We performed a single-center, prospective, comparative study that compared patient-reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q in patients after different types of breast reconstruction (autologous, alloplastic, or after breast conserving) who subsequently had fat grafting. In total, 254 patients were eligible for the study, but only 54 (68 breasts) completed all the stages needed for inclusion. Patient demographic and breast characteristics are described. Median age was 52 years. The mean body mass index was 26.1 ± 3.9. The mean postoperative period at the administration of BREAST-Q questionnaires was 17.6 months. The mean preoperative BREAST-Q was 59.92 ± 17.37, and the mean postoperative score was 74.84 ± 12.48 (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference when divided by the type of reconstruction. Fat grafting is an ancillary procedure that improves the outcomes in breast reconstruction independently of the reconstruction type and heightens patient satisfaction, and it should be considered an integral part of any reconstruction algorithm.

A Comparative Analysis of Patient Satisfaction and Cosmetic Outcomes after Breast Reconstruction through BREAST-Q and the Judgment of Medical Panels: Does it Reflect Well in Terms of Aesthetics in Korean Patients?

Background Currently, the BREAST-Q can effectively measure patient's satisfaction on the quality of life from the patient's perspective in relation to different type of breast reconstruction. However, evaluation of patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes in breast reconstruction may have potential to led bias. Methods To maximize the benefits of using BREAST-Q to evaluate clinical outcome, we performed comparative study focused on the correlation between postoperative BREAST-Q and cosmetic outcomes assessed by medical professionals. For the current analysis, we used three postoperative BREAST-Q scales (satisfaction with breast, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being). The Ten-Point Scale by Visser et al was applied to provide reproducible grading of the postoperative cosmetic outcomes of the breast. The system includes six subscales that measured overall aesthetic outcome, volume, shape, symmetry, scarring, and nipple-areolar complex. The photographic assessments were made by five medical professionals who were shown photographs on a computer screen in a random order. Obtained data were stored in Excel and evaluated by Spearman's correlations using SPSS Statistics. Results We enrolled 92 women in this study, 10 did not respond to all scales of postoperative BREAST-Q, the remaining 82 women had undergone breast reconstruction. The correlation between BREAST-Q score and aesthetic score measured by Ten-Point Scale for the three BREAST-Q scales all show positive values in Spearman's correlation coefficient. Conclusion A significant correlation without any bias observed was found between the patient's satisfaction measured by BREAST-Q after breast reconstruction and the medical expert's aesthetic evaluation.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of breast conservation and reconstruction after mastectomy using BREAST-Q

Patients' post-operative wellbeing determines the impact andeffectiveness of breast reshaping and reconstruction procedures. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare four different types of breast reconstruction: bilateral therapeutic mammaplasty, DIEP flap, ELD with immediate lipomodelling and implant-based reconstruction using BREAST-Q. Patients who underwent breast reconstruction by one of the above-mentioned methods were identified from a retrospective register and sent BREAST-Q questionnaires. Univariate and multivariate analysis of BREAST-Q scores and clinical characteristics were performed for identifying trends between and within groups. A total of 240 patients were identified with a response rate of 57%. Patients receiving implants were statistically less satisfied with breast reconstruction (mean 57%) and tended to be younger with lower BMI in comparison to other groups. There were no statistical differences in psychosocial wellbeing or patient experience between groups. Despite the fact that clinically these groups were heterogeneous, satisfaction with breast was similar in the remaining three autologous groups (range 70-75%). Detailed analysis and interpretation of quality-of-life scores, clinical differences and trends identified in the multivariate analysis along with nuances between surgical techniques used in our unit for breast reshaping and reconstruction, have been performed. The most important goal of breast reconstruction is to restore patients' quality of life and satisfaction with breast. Identifying factors which can potentially predict poor outcomes will improve the informed consent process and patient selection.

Is There a Difference in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Local Recurrence between Autologous Tissue and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction?

Introduction Breast reconstruction has become common after total mastectomy; however, certain types of breast reconstruction may be associated with delayed local recurrence or poor survival. Here, we investigated whether there are differences in the diagnosis and prognosis of local recurrence between autologous reconstruction and implant reconstruction. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing breast cancer surgery with autologous tissue or immediate implant reconstruction in a single center (January 2003-December 2017). Patient data including the period from cancer surgery to local recurrence diagnosis, tumor size at the time of recurrence, and survival time after cancer surgery and recurrence detection were analyzed. Results There was a significant difference (p = 0.021) in the time from surgery to recurrence between the autologous tissue (1,246 days) and implant (909 days) groups. Recurrence tumor size did not differ (autologous: 1.00 cm2 vs. implant: 0.90 cm2; p = 0.813). Survival time after surgery (p = 0.63) and recurrence detection (p = 0.74) did not statistically significant. Conclusions Statistical difference in the detection time was observed between autologous tissue and implant group. On the other hand, there is no difference in recurrence tumor size or survival time. A further study is necessary to identify the different detection time of local recurrence.

1042 The Effect of Breast Reconstruction Type on Complication Rates and Patient Satisfaction in The Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy (PMRT)

Abstract Introduction The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend offering post mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) to people with involved resection margins. With increasing evidence supporting the effectiveness of PMRT, it is important to optimise the outcomes of breast reconstruction in women receiving PMRT. Method A search was conducted in the PubMed database. The exclusion criteria were patients undergoing neoadjuvant radiotherapy and patients with metastases. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction and complication rates. Results A meta-analysis (N = 380) found prosthetic reconstructions were 5 times more likely to develop complications than autologous reconstructions in the setting of PMRT (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.1-0.4). A systematic review (N = 5437) had higher rates of total complications in prosthetic reconstructions compared to autologous reconstructions (41.3% vs 30.9%) with PMRT. Similarly, a retrospective study of PMRT patients (N = 622) had higher rates of complications with prosthetic reconstructions compared to autologous reconstructions (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.27-0.82, P = 0.007). The adjusted mean satisfaction score (AMSS) of patients with autologous and prosthetic reconstructions receiving PMRT in a study (N = 54) was 4.4 and 2.8, respectively. Patient-reported satisfaction in a study (N = 622) was higher in patients with autologous (AMSS=63.5, 95% CI = 55.9-71.1) compared to prosthetic reconstructions (AMSS=47.7, 95% CI = 40.2-55.2) (all P = 0.002) with PMRT. Conclusions Existing data suggests that autologous tissue reconstructions tend to be more compatible with PMRT than prosthetic reconstructions in terms of patient satisfaction and complication rates. Although more research is needed to support these findings, current data can help patients and physicians make informed decisions regarding the type of breast reconstruction to use with PMRT.

Influence of Hypofractionated Versus Conventional Fractionated Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients With Reconstruction

We aimed to compare breast-related complications between hypofractionated adjuvant postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) and conventional fractionated radiation therapy (RT) in patients with breast cancer undergoing reconstruction by reconstruction surgery type. Data from a total of 396 patients with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction after mastectomy between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received adjuvant PMRT according to either a conventional fractionation or hypofractionation schedule. We analyzed breast-related complications according to the timing of breast reconstruction (immediate or delayed). In cases of delayed reconstruction, only PMRT delivered before final delayed reconstruction was included. A major breast complication was defined as a breast-related toxicity that required reoperation or rehospitalization after the end of RT. The median follow-up time was 35.3 months (range, 8.8-122.7 months). Of all patients, 267 received immediate breast reconstruction and 129 received delayed breast reconstruction. In patients with immediate breast reconstruction, 91 were treated with conventional RT and 176 received hypofractionated RT. The occurrence of major breast-related complications did not differ significantly between the 2 fractionation regimens. Hypofractionated RT did not increase major wound problems (infection and dehiscence) compared with conventional RT. Furthermore, major contracture occurred significantly less frequently in hypofractionated RT. Of the patients who had delayed breast reconstruction, 48 received conventional RT and 81 received hypofractionated RT. There was no difference in the incidence of major breast complications between these 2 RT groups, and no difference in major breast complications were reported for either 1- or 2-stage delayed reconstruction. A time interval of >10 months between PMRT and final definitive reconstruction had a significantly lower incidence of major breast complications. Hypofractionated RT appears to be comparable with conventional fractionated RT in terms of breast-related complications in patients with breast cancer undergoing reconstruction, regardless of breast reconstruction type. An ongoing prospective randomized trial should confirm our findings.

Self-Reported Risk Factors for Financial Distress and Attitudes Regarding Cost Discussions in Cancer Care: A Single-Institution Cross-Sectional Pilot Study of Breast Reconstruction Recipients.

High treatment costs associated with breast cancer are a substantial burden to patients and society. Despite mounting awareness, patient perspectives about the value of cost discussions in breast reconstruction and risk factors for financial distress are unknown. The authors performed a single-institution, cross-sectional survey of all women who underwent breast reconstruction following mastectomy or lumpectomy for breast cancer or risk reduction. Questions were derived from previously published survey items, and the authors leveraged regression analysis to identify patient-level risk factors for major financial distress. A total of 647 of 2293 patients returned the survey questionnaires (28.2 percent response rate). From the 647 respondents, 399 (62 percent) underwent breast reconstruction, and of these, 140 (35 percent) reported that total treatment expenses were higher than expected. One hundred twenty-nine breast reconstruction patients (32 percent) paid over $5000 in out-of-pocket costs. Two hundred eighty-four (71 percent) felt that surgeons should explain the estimated out-of-pocket costs when choosing a type of breast reconstruction and 205 (51 percent) believed that a financial consultation should be scheduled with every new cancer diagnosis. However, only 52 patients (13 percent) reported having had cost discussions with the treatment team. The incidence of major financial distress was n = 70 (18 percent), and following regression analysis, higher credit score and annual income were associated with a 66 percent and 69 percent risk reduction, respectively. Recipients of breast reconstruction demonstrate unanticipated and unplanned financial strain related to out-of-pocket expenses and believe that cost-consciousness should impact treatment decisions. Lower income and credit score are associated with financial distress. Cost discussions may optimize decision-making in preference sensitive conditions.

Telehealth: Could It Be an Avenue to Microvascular Breast Reconstruction for Patients with Geographical Barriers?

All women undergoing a mastectomy have the right to reconstruction. However, many women do not receive reconstruction and many more are not aware of all the reconstructive options available to them. Travel distance to a center that provides reconstruction and subsequent follow-up may be a contributing factor to this disparity especially among those who seek microsurgical options. Telehealth, which provides patients with remote video consultations and decreases the travel burden, may be a solution to optimize the accessibility of breast reconstruction for these patients. The purpose of this study was to discuss the efficacy and reliability of telehealth to overcome geographic barriers. Patients who received breast reconstruction and participated in video telehealth visits between February and May 2020 were included in this study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes were collected. Video telehealth encounters were reviewed to determine specific concerns and questions discussed during these encounters. A total of 235 breast reconstruction surgery patient encounters were recorded for 4 plastic surgeons who offer microsurgical breast reconstruction. Eighty-eight patients (37.4%) were seen as telehealth visits, 20 (22.7%) of which were new patient visits. Eight (9.09%) patients were microsurgical breast reconstruction candidates and 25 (28.4%) were following-up after microsurgical breast reconstruction. The majority of telehealth visits included normally healing wounds in the postoperative patient. Telehealth provides an avenue for premastectomy consultation, second opinion visits, and postoperative follow-up for patients who have geographical barriers precluding them from reaching plastic surgeons who perform all types of breast reconstruction.

Lessons Learned From Twenty-Eight Cases of Burns Following Breast Reconstruction: An Underestimated Complication Requiring Inclusion in Consent Information.

There has over recent years been a constant increase in annual breast reconstruction figures. Although reports indicate that burns following breast reconstruction are a rare occurrence, there has nevertheless been a relative increase in cases. The key underlying causes of this type of condition remain unknown. The authors launched a new study on the demographic characteristics of burns in the breast reconstruction population with the inclusion of up-to-date data to assess cases and contributing factors. The study was a multicenter retrospective review of patients who underwent any type of breast reconstruction and subsequently sustained burn injuries. Twenty-eight cases of burn injury following breast reconstruction were documented; 6 involved autologous flaps and 22 involved implants. Nine of the 10 implant exposure cases had previous history of radiotherapy, but there was no statistically significant difference between previous radiotherapy history and implant exposure (P = 0.32). Of the 13 cases sustaining full-thickness burns, a large number included implant-based reconstruction (n = 12, 92%), although no statistically significant difference was observed between type of reconstruction and incidence of full-thickness burns (P = 0.17). Each patient undergoing breast reconstruction should be advised of the potential risks and instructed to avoid significant heat exposure and steer clear of dark-colored bathing suits. At the time of writing, this information has yet to be included in the vast majority of surgery-related informed consent documents.