Complication Rates of Radiation on Tissue Expander and Autologous Tissue Breast Reconstruction

Background

To evaluate risk factors for complications of tissue expander/implant and autologous tissue breast reconstructions and determine if radiation increases complication rates.

Materials and Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy plus autologous tissue or expander/implant reconstruction at the Cleveland Clinic. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed in each group to evaluate for risk factors for complications. A complication was considered major if it required reoperation. A predictive model was used to compare the 2 groups to one another.

Results

A total of 1037 patients were included in the study. In the tissue expander/implant population, there was a total complication rate of 31.8% and overall major complication rate of 24.4%. Radiation increased the major complication rate from 21.2 to 45.4%. However, 70.1% of the radiated patients ultimately had a successful implant-based reconstruction while an additional 10.3% went on to have autologous reconstruction. Age and body mass index (BMI) > 30 also led to higher major complication rates in tissue expander/implant reconstruction while smoking, hypertension, and chemotherapy had no impact. In the autologous reconstruction group, there was a total complication rate of 31.5% and a major complication rate of 19.7%. There was no statistically significant difference between the radiated and nonradiated autologous tissue reconstructions with major complication rates of 17.9 and 20.5%, respectively. BMI > 30 was the only significant factor leading to higher major complications in the autologous reconstructions.

Conclusion

Total complication rates were similar between tissue expander and autologous reconstructions. Increased major complication rates in patients with tissue expander reconstructions occurred in those with radiation, but was still successful in the majority of patients. Radiation had no influence on autologous tissue reconstruction major complication rates.

     

Nipple reconstruction: risk factors and complications after 189 procedures

Background

A multitude of different approaches have been proposed for achieving optimal aesthetic results after nipple reconstruction. In contrast, however, only a few studies focus on the morbidity associated with this procedure, particularly after implant-based breast reconstruction.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, all patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with subsequent nipple reconstruction between 2000 and 2010 at Stanford University Medical Center were identified. The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of the following parameters on the occurrence of postoperative complications: age, final implant volume, time interval from placement of final implant to nipple reconstruction, and history of radiotherapy.

Results

A total of 139 patients with a mean age of 47.5 years (range, 29 to 75 years) underwent 189 nipple reconstructions. The overall complication rate was 13.2 % (N?=?25 nipple reconstructions). No association was observed between age (p?=?0.43) or implant volume (p?=?0.47) and the occurrence of complications. A trend towards higher complication rates in patients in whom the time interval between final implant placement and nipple reconstruction was greater than 8.5 months was seen (p?=?0.07). Radiotherapy was the only parameter that was associated with a statistically significant increase in postoperative complication rate (51.7 vs. 6.25 %, p?<?0.00001).

Conclusions

While nipple reconstruction is a safe procedure after implant-based breast reconstruction in patients without a history of radiotherapy, the presence of an irradiated field converts it to a high-risk one with a significant increase in postoperative complication rate. Patients with a history of radiotherapy should be informed about their risk profile and as a result may choose autologous reconstruction instead. Level of Evidence: Level IV, prognostic/risk study.     

A Systematic Review of Complications of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction with Prereconstruction and Postreconstruction Radiotherapy

Purpose

To conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess outcomes data on complications associated with implant-based breast reconstruction performed before or after chest wall radiation to assist in guiding the decision-making process for reconstruction of the irradiated breast.

Methods

Studies from a PubMed search that met predetermined inclusion criteria were identified and included. Complications of interest were low- and high-grade capsular contractures, minor and major complications, reconstruction failure rates, and reconstruction completion rates. Pooled complication rates were calculated.

Results

A total of 26 articles were included in the study after screening 1,006 publications, with 14 studies presenting data on prereconstruction radiation and 23 studies presenting data on postreconstruction radiation. Complication rates evaluated in patients exposed to radiation before or after implant reconstruction were not significantly different. Reconstruction failure rates were similar at 19 and 20 % for pre- and postreconstruction radiation patients, respectively. Completion rates were similar at 83 and 80 % for pre- and postreconstruction radiation patients, respectively.

Conclusions

Review of the current literature suggests similar overall success and failure rates with radiotherapy provided both before and after reconstruction. Failure rates in both groups of patients are clinically significant when considering implant reconstruction in the setting of radiation.     

Management of exposed, infected implant-based breast reconstruction and strategies for salvage

Introduction

Complications of implant-based breast reconstruction are rare but mastectomy flap necrosis and peri-implant infection are the most frequent and remain an important cause of early implant failure. This study aimed to compare the results of three different management strategies employed to deal with these complications at our institution.

Patients and methods

A consecutive series of 71 infected/exposed prostheses in 68 patients over a 20-year period were analysed. Management strategies included explantation and delayed reconstruction, implant salvage and explantation and immediate autologous reconstruction.

Results

Only 19 of 45 (42%), managed with implant removal, went on to delayed reconstruction. Methods of delayed reconstruction were distributed equally between implant-only, implant and autologous tissue and autologous-only reconstructions. The implant was successfully salvaged in nine cases, but reducing the implant size or introducing new tissue as a flap increased the success from 45% to 53%. Three patients with infected implant-only breast reconstruction underwent explantation and immediate conversion to autologous-only reconstructions.

Conclusions

All the three interventions reviewed here have their place in the management of infected implant-based breast reconstructions. It is noteworthy that following implant removal, the likelihood of the patient proceeding to delayed reconstruction of any kind is similar to the likelihood of successful salvage (42% vs. 45%). This study population had high numbers of exposed implants in irradiated fields. Reducing implant size or introducing new tissue in the form of a flap increases the chances of successful implant salvage. In the presence of mild infection, removal of exposed/infected implants and immediate conversion to an autologous-only reconstruction can prove to be successful.     

De-epithelialized dermal barrier for a safe immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction post circumvertical skin sparing/reducing mastectomy (SSM/SRM)

Background

Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and skin-reducing mastectomy (SRM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is oncologically safe and has become increasingly popular as an effective treatment for patients with early stage breast cancer requiring mastectomy. Cosmetic appearance following IBR depends largely on the location of the skin incision, the quantity of breast skin left as well as the pocket for prosthetic placement, whether submuscular, subcutaneous, or both. SRM with Le Jour pattern skin excision has already been described in conjunction with autogenous tissue reconstruction. This technique is not recommended for implant-based IBR because any compromise of skin viability can result in exposure of the implant or expander.

Methods

We propose SRM with a circumvertical skin excision pattern and IBR comprising a de-epithelialized dermal barrier to reinforce the vertical suture line. We performed this technique on 10 breast cancer patients.

Results

Eight patients underwent SSM with IBR using textured anatomical cohesive gel implants. One patient had Becker tear drop implants for both breasts (right SSM with IBR, and delayed left breast reconstruction); and the last patient had completion mastectomies with IBR using Becker tear drop implants. None of the patients developed complications.

Conclusion

This technique is reliable and safe for implant-based IBR, ensuring minimal scarring and pleasing aesthetic results. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.     

Delayed two-stage breast reconstruction with implants: The authors�� recent experience

BACKGROUND:

Presently, breast cancer detection is delayed in Poland and, thus, the only other option for patients is amputation and breast reconstruction (immediate or delayed). Reconstructive methods are based on using the patient’s own tissue (pedicled or free myocutaneous flaps) or implants (a tissue expander, which is later exchanged for a prosthesis or an expandable implant).

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the aesthetic results of a delayed two-stage breast reconstruction with the use of implants (expander and prosthesis) in patients who have previously undergone cancer-related mastectomy.

METHODS:

From 2006 to 2009, 54 patients (34 to 65 years of age) underwent reconstruction at least one year after their mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy; three women also received x-ray therapy. All women underwent a two-stage treatment with a tissue expander, which was later exchanged for a prosthesis.

RESULTS:

Outcomes of the surgery (evaluated by the physician and the patient at least six months after all stages of reconstruction) were found to be very good in 42 patients and good in 12 patients. After amputation and x-ray therapy in two cases, a fistula developed, which necessitated implant removal.

CONCLUSIONS:

After amputation, breast reconstruction with implants (expander and prosthesis) provides good aesthetic results. The method is mildly burdening to the patient and does not cause severe scarring. Symmetrization of the second breast is often recommended; however, the cost is not covered by the national health system. In principle, earlier x-ray therapy disqualifies the application of implants. Dividing reconstruction into two stages (expander and prosthesis) allows for possible correction of prosthesis placement.     

Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Background

This study aimed to compare the impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) on outcomes after prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with local deepithelialized dermal flap and acellular dermal matrix (ADM).

Methods

From 2010 to 2017, 274 patients (426 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction. In this group, 241 patients (370 breasts) were not exposed to PMRT, whereas 45 patients (56 breasts) were exposed to PMRT. Of 100 patients (163 breasts) who underwent partial subpectoral reconstruction, 87 (140 breasts) were not exposed to PMRT, whereas 21 patients (23 breasts) were exposed. The outcomes were assessed by comparing complication rates between the pre- and subpectoral groups.

Results

A higher rate of capsular contracture was found for the prepectoral patients with PMRT than for those without PMRT (16.1 vs 3.5%; p?=?0.0008) and for the subpectoral patients with PMRT than for those without PMRT (52.2 vs 2.9%; p?=?0.0001). The contracture rate was three times higher for the subpectoral patients with PMRT than for the prepectoral patients with PMRT (52.2 vs 16.1%; p?=?0.0018). In addition, 10 (83.3%) of 12 cases with capsular contracture in the subpectoral cohort that received PMRT were Baker grades 3 or 4 compared with only 2 (22.2%) of 9 cases of the prepectoral group with PMRT (p?=?0.0092).

Conclusions

The patients undergoing subpectoral breast reconstruction who received PMRT had a capsular contracture rate three times greater with more severe contractures (Baker grade 3 or 4) than the patients receiving PMRT who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction.

     

Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: A Canadian perspective

BACKGROUND:

When and how best to perform breast reconstruction in the setting of radiation therapy is a much debated topic.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the approaches that Canadian plastic surgeons are taking to breast reconstruction in patients who require or may require radiation therapy.

METHODS:

In April 2009, a survey invitation was sent to Canadian plastic surgeons via e-mail. Survey responses were collected over a two-month period.

RESULTS:

Of the 307 invitees, 90 surgeons responded, of whom 76 met the inclusion criteria. Most surgeons (66%) do not perform immediate reconstruction in patients who require postmastectomy radiation. Most respondents (64%) perform immediate reconstructions for patients whose need for radiation is uncertain at the time of mastectomy. Expander and implants is their preferred option, followed by free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap. Thirty-five per cent use the delayed immediate technique in these cases. Twenty-one per cent are unfamiliar with the delayed-immediate technique. For delayed reconstruction of the irradiated patient, the pedicled TRAM is the most common choice.

CONCLUSIONS:

The reconstructive options are increasing for patients who may need postmastectomy radiation. The use of the delayed immediate technique could increase as physicians gain more knowledge of the technique.     

Neoadjuvant therapy and breast cancer surgery: a closer look at postoperative complications

Background

Neoadjuvant therapy is important in the treatment of advanced breast cancer.

Methods

Postoperative complications in neoadjuvant patients were analyzed.

Results

One hundred forty patients underwent 148 breast cancer surgeries after neoadjuvant therapy: 28% breast-conserving therapy procedures, 36% mastectomies, 28% mastectomies with immediate reconstruction, and 8% mastectomies with delayed reconstruction. Forty-seven patients (34%) suffered 59 complications: 18% of those undergoing breast-conserving therapy, 30% of those undergoing mastectomy, 44% of those undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, and 67% of those undergoing mastectomy with delayed reconstruction. Major complications occurred in 18% of patients. Skin loss occurred in 6% of patients. One patient had partial nipple necrosis. Three patients suffered implant loss. One patient had deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap loss. Eleven hematomas and 5 infectious complications required reoperation.

Conclusions

Surgery after neoadjuvant therapy is safe, but careful counseling is warranted given that 18% of patients experienced major complications. Complications rates are higher with reconstruction, but feared complications of skin, nipple, implant, or flap loss were infrequent.     

Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy: what are the long-term prospects?

INTRODUCTION

Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy has known psychological and financial advantages but it is difficult to compare the outcome of various methods of reconstruction. Re-operation rates are an objective measure of surgical intervention required to attain and maintain acceptable cosmesis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 95 patients (110 immediate reconstructions) was analysed for number of re-operations required within 5 years of initial surgery, magnitude of procedures, ‘survival’ of the reconstruction and effect of radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Although more intervention was seen in patients with implant-based reconstruction and the time-course over which autologous and implant-based reconstructions fail is different these did not reach statistical significance. Radiotherapy has a significant effect on failure of implant-based reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term, large studies of immediate reconstruction are required to assess adequately the impact of type of reconstruction on re-operation rates. The National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit is ideally placed to provide answers to remaining questions about longevity of immediate breast reconstruction and the effect that late failure has on patient satisfaction.     

Maximizing aesthetic outcome in autologous breast reconstruction with implants and lipofilling

Background

Free flap breast reconstruction is an option widely sought in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. However, the volume of autologous tissue from the patient is often not sufficient for symmetrical reconstruction. In these cases, flaps can be used in combination with implants or autologous fat injections to augment volume and achieve shape, symmetry, and contour.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent postmastectomy free flap reconstruction with secondary augmentation using autologous fat grafting or implant from 2008 to 2011.

Results

Twenty-four patients (39 breasts) received further augmentation of autologous tissue reconstruction during this period. Sixteen patients (26 breasts) had fat graft augmentation only, four patients (eight breasts) had implant augmentation only, and three patients (five breasts) had both procedures. Among patients who had fat grafting, operative intervention was required twice for fat necrosis. Contrastingly, of patients who received implants, one patient required operative intervention for implant malpositioning. These differences were not significant (P?=?0.57). The group with both fat grafting and implant augmentation had significantly higher aesthetic scores regarding overall appearance, contour, and volume, but not projection, than the group with fat grafting only and the group with implant only.

Conclusions

Autologous fat grafting offers several contouring aesthetic advantages, including selectively augmenting areas of hollowness to improve contour and maximize symmetry. However, implant augmentation generally allows for a larger increase in projection in a single procedure, with similar rates of postaugmentation complications. Use of both autologous fat grafting and implant augmentation may allow for superior aesthetic results. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.     

Implantatchirurgie an der weiblichen Brust bei Mammakarzinom

Background

Due to a paradigm shift in favor of more conservative surgery and targeted therapy, skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with or without preservation of the nipple–areola complex (NAC) has replaced modified radical mastectomy. Preservation of the skin envelope of the breast requires an immediate volume replacement.

Methods

Due to the ample skin envelope of the breast, expansion is no longer necessary. Today, the first choice is form-stable, textured or polyurethane-coated silicone breast implants with a surface layer of a firmer gel and an anatomical design. Only in cases with more radical resection of skin is a permanent expansion device needed. SSM or NSM require careful preoperative planning, the right choice of implant and a safe surgical technique. The preservation of the NAC in case of benign histology below the NAC is possible.

Results

Unilateral implant reconstruction may cause asymmetry. The use of implants makes secondary resection and postoperative radiotherapy easier to perform. Shortcomings of the pectoralis major muscle require the addition of a synthetic mesh or acellular dermis to complete the implant pocket, which is associated with a low complication rate. Form-stable implants lead to an excellent esthetic result without major complications and without the incidence of capsular fibrosis so far. Within a 10-year period, the use of permanent expanders caused a 24.3?% exchange rate of the devices due to complications or dissatisfaction with the esthetic outcome.

Conclusion

SSM and NSM have replaced modified radical mastectomy in defined clinical situations. One-stage implant reconstruction with permanent silicone breast implants, which have a lower incidence of complications, has replaced sequential expander–implant reconstruction.

     

Effective breast reconstruction in female veterans

Background

Despite increasing female veteran numbers, literature regarding reconstruction after breast cancer is lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine breast reconstruction referral rates and reconstruction outcomes at a tertiary Veterans Affairs hospital.

Methods

Female breast cancer patients (1997-2008) were identified. Demographics, tumor stage, oncologic therapies, reconstructive timings and procedures, and complications were noted.

Results

Eighty-two women underwent mastectomy (46%) or breast conservation (43%). The referral rates to plastic surgery were 61% (mastectomy) and 32% (overall). Reconstruction rates were 42% (mastectomy) and 22% (overall). Sixty-nine percent were suitable candidates and chose immediate (67%) or delayed (33%) reconstruction, with implant-based (44%), autologous (39%), or autologous plus implants (17%). There were complications (28%) but no mortalities. Comorbidities were not correlated with outcomes.

Conclusions

Breast reconstruction can be effectively delivered within the Veterans Affairs system. It is essential that sufficient Veterans Affairs resources be deployed to address the increasing reconstructive needs of female veterans.     

Chin projection creation in patients with facial and cervical burn scar contracture

Background

Loss of cervicomental angle is characteristic of severe facial and cervical burned patients due to scar contracture. This micrognathia-like deformity is also seen in patients following chin and neck reconstruction using skin expanded flaps. The aim of modern plastic surgery is to restore a harmonious and symmetrical facial appearance for burn survivors.

Methods

Six facial and cervical burned patients with micrognathia-like deformity after neck reconstructions were reported. Chin augmentation with Medpor implant through submental approach was performed in 4 patients and intraoral access in 2 cases to restore their favorable chin projections. Five of them received cervicomental contour reconstruction simultaneously.

Results

Patient follow-up ranged from 12 to 18 months. No implants became exposed nor infected. All patients had satisfactory results. We reviewed our experience with the use of the Medpor implant in burn chin reconstruction including preoperative and postoperative radiograph analysis.

Conclusions

With proper patient selection, pre-operative planning, and taking care of details during operation, augmentation genioplasty with Medpor implant offers a reliable, simple and satisfactory solution for improving micrognathia-like facial configurations in patients with scar contracture following severe burns.     

Quality of life,pain of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with a discussion on cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionPrepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PIBR) has regained popularity, despite decades-long preference for subpectoral implant placement. This paper aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PRO) between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The primary PRO was with the BREAST-Q, and postoperative pain scores, while the secondary outcomes were complication rates.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of the PubMed library was performed. All studies on patients undergoing IBBR after mastectomy that compared prepectoral to subpectoral placement and PROM or postoperative pain were included.ResultsA total of 3789 unique studies of which 7 publications with 216 and 332 patients who received prepectoral and subpectoral implants, respectively, were included for meta-analysis.Patients with prepectoral implant placement had significantly higher satisfaction with the outcome (p = 0.03) and psychosocial well-being (p = 0.03) module scores. The pain was lower in patients with prepectoral implants on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and day 7 (p<0.01). The subgroup analysis of prepectoral breast implants showed that complete acellular dermal matrix coverage had lower rates of wound dehiscence (p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in complications between one-stage and two-stage procedures.ConclusionOverall, patients with prepectoral implants reported higher BREAST-Q scores and lower postoperative pain and lower complications rates than patients with subpectoral implants. In appropriately selected patients, prepectoral implant placement with ADM coverage, be it the primary placement of an implant or placement of a tissue expander before definitive implant placement, should be the modality of choice in patients who choose IBBR. Further research should focus on patient selection, strategies to reduce cost and cost-benefit analysis of PIBR.     

Differences in breast aesthetic outcomes due to radiation: A validated,quantitative analysis of expander-implant reconstruction

BACKGROUND:

The potential ramifications of radiation use can be of particular concern in the breast reconstruction population, in which both surgical and aesthetic outcomes are important. Presently, there remains a paucity of data detailing the influence of radiation on specific reconstruction aesthetic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:

To conduct a quantitative evaluation of aesthetic outcomes for expander-implant breast reconstruction in radiated and nonradiated patients using a validated scoring scale.

METHODS:

A series of consecutive expander-implant breast reconstruction operations performed by the senior author between 2004 and 2012 were reviewed. Four blinded members of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Northwestern University (Illinois, USA) independently rated postoperative photographs of patients’ breasts using a validated scoring scale with respect to five distinct aesthetic domains.

RESULTS:

Of the 206 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 69 received radiotherapy and 137 did not. The radiated cohort had lower scores in each aesthetic domain, with significant differences in contour (1.33 versus 1.51; P=0.041) and placement (1.45 versus 1.73; P<0.001). Linear regression analysis revealed a significant association between placement scores and radiation, and radiated patients had a significantly higher overall rate of complications.

DISCUSSION:

Variances in scores may represent the relative difficulty of expansions and proper implant placement in irradiated tissue, with possible skin fibrosis and decreased flexibility hindering prosthesis manipulation.

CONCLUSION:

Radiation adversely impacts breast contour and placement, with possible negative contributions to volume, scarring and inframammary fold definition, and results in higher rates of complications. Such detailed evaluation of the impact of radiation on aesthetics will enhance the management of patient expectations.     

Tracking the aesthetic outcomes of prosthetic breast reconstructions that have complications

BACKGROUND:

Aesthetic results following breast reconstruction have been shown to be a major contributor to patient satisfaction. While many presume that complications after reconstruction impact final aesthetic results, little data exist to substantiate this putative relationship.

OBJECTIVE:

To track and evaluate aesthetic outcomes following implant reconstructions with complications.

METHODS:

A chart review was conducted on a series of consecutive expander-implant breast reconstructions performed by the senior author between 2004 and 2012. Included patients completed their prosthetic reconstruction or converted to autologous methods and had a minimum follow-up period of 130 days. Four blinded members of the division of plastic surgery independently rated postoperative anterior photographs of patients’ breasts using a validated scoring scale with respect to five distinct aesthetic domains: breast mound volume, contour, placement, scarring and inframammary fold.

RESULTS:

Of the 172 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 36 experienced a complication. The tissue expander in one-half of these patients was salvaged and the remaining patients converted to autologous reconstruction. The average aesthetic scores for each domain did not differ significantly between patients who experienced a complication and retained their expander and those who did not experience a complication. Patients who converted to autologous tissue reconstruction after experiencing a complication had the highest aesthetic scores.

DISCUSSION:

The ability to obtain aesthetic results following a complication that were not statistically different from results in those without complications may reflect the surgeon’s refined attempt to salvage the initial implant reconstruction; in other circumstances, the improved cosmesis was achieved through conversion to an autologous tissue-based method.

CONCLUSION:

The present study quantitatively assessed the impact of complications on aesthetic outcomes following implant breast reconstruction. Continuance of prosthetic reconstruction and conversion to autologous reconstruction serve as viable options to obtain adequate aesthetic scores following a complication. Information gained from the present analysis will help manage patient expectations.     

Silicone breast prostheses: A cohort study of complaints,complications, and explantations between 2003 and 2015

Background

Complications after silicone implantation, with silicone extravasation being the most severe, remain a safety issue in breast implantation surgery. The purpose of our study was to determine the incidence of medium- and long-term postoperative complaints and complications and indications for explantation in patients with a silicone breast implant.

Chest and Upper Body Morbidity Following Immediate Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Objective

The performance of a mastectomy for the treatment or prophylaxis of breast cancer may have long-term implications for both physical and mental well-being in women. The development of breast numbness and phantom breast sensations following mastectomy is well-known; however, relatively little is known about physical morbidity following postmastectomy breast reconstruction. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the level of physical morbidity experienced following three surgical approaches: mastectomy alone, postmastectomy tissue expander/implant reconstruction, and postmastectomy autogenous tissue reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of women who had undergone mastectomy with or without reconstruction. Chest and upper body morbidity were evaluated using the BREAST-Q. Physical well-being was compared across three types of breast surgery.

Results

In total, 308 of 452 women who received a questionnaire booklet returned completed questionnaires. There was an overall difference in physical morbidity attributable to surgical treatment (P < 0.001). Patients who underwent autogenous tissue reconstruction had the highest (i.e., best) mean physical well-being score. Women who underwent expander/implant reconstruction also had less chronic physical morbidity than women who underwent mastectomy alone (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that women who undergo immediate autogenous tissue reconstruction experience significantly less chest and upper body morbidity than those who undergo either mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction or mastectomy alone. This information can be used to facilitate clinical decision-making, to validate individual experiences of breast cancer survivors, and to inform future innovations to decrease the long-term physical morbidity associated with breast cancer surgery.