Oncoplastic Surgery with Volume Replacement versus Mastectomy with Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Early Postoperative Complications in Patients with Breast Cancer

Two common surgical approaches for breast cancer are breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy with implant-based breast reconstruction (MIBR). However, for large tumors, an alternative to MIBR is oncoplastic surgery with volume replacement (OPSVR). We performed a comprehensive analysis comparing OPSVR with MIBR, with our aim to focus on the 30-day postoperative complications between these two techniques.We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2020. Only breast cancer patients were included and were divided according to the surgical technique: OPSVR and MIBR. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent risk factors for total, surgical, and wound complications.A cohort of 8,403 breast cancer patients was analyzed. A total of 683 underwent OPSVR and 7,720 underwent MIBR. From 2005 to 2020, the adoption of OPSVR gradually increased over the years (<i>p</i> < 0.001), whereas MIBR decreased. OPSVR patients were older (57.04 vs. 51.89 years, <i>p</i> < 0.001), exhibited a higher body mass index (31.73 vs. 26.93, <i>p</i> < 0.001), had a greater prevalence of diabetes mellitus (11.0 vs. 5.0%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). They also had a higher ASA classification (2.33 vs. 2.15, <i>p</i> < 0.001), shorter operative time (173.39 vs. 216.20 minutes, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and a higher proportion of outpatient procedures (83.7 vs. 39.5%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Outcome analysis demonstrated fewer total complications in the OPSVR patients (4.2 vs. 10.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), including lower rates of surgical complications (2.2 vs. 8.0%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and wound complications (1.9 vs. 4.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.005) compared with MIBR patients. Multivariate analysis identified OPSVR as an independent protective factor for total, surgical, and wound complications.OPSVR has become a favorable technique for patients with breast cancer. Even in patients with higher comorbidities, OPSVR demonstrates safe and better outcomes when compared with MIBR. It should be considered a reasonable and safe breast surgical option in the appropriate patient.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
Published
2024-11-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2491-3110
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.15
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Oncoplastic Surgery with Volume Replacement versus Mastectomy with Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Early Postoperative Complications in Patients with Breast Cancer

Caroline King, Michael Mallouh, A. Narváez, Anshumi Desai et al.
2 citations
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
1.15
article

Oncoplastic Surgery with Volume Replacement versus Mastectomy with Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Early Postoperative Complications in Patients with Breast Cancer

Caroline King, Michael Mallouh, A. Narváez, Anshumi Desai, Gabriel De la Cruz Ku, Christopher Homsy, Sarah Persing, Abhishek Chatterjee, Salvatore Nardello, Meera Singhal
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Two common surgical approaches for breast cancer are breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy with implant-based breast reconstruction (MIBR). However, for large tumors, an alternative to MIBR is oncoplastic surgery with volume replacement (OPSVR). We performed a comprehensive analysis comparing OPSVR with MIBR, with our aim to focus on the 30-day postoperative complications between these two techniques.We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2020. Only breast cancer patients were included and were divided according to the surgical technique: OPSVR and MIBR. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent risk factors for total, surgical, and wound complications.A cohort of 8,403 breast cancer patients was analyzed. A total of 683 underwent OPSVR and 7,720 underwent MIBR. From 2005 to 2020, the adoption of OPSVR gradually increased over the years (<i>p</i> < 0.001), whereas MIBR decreased. OPSVR patients were older (57.04 vs. 51.89 years, <i>p</i> < 0.001), exhibited a higher body mass index (31.73 vs. 26.93, <i>p</i> < 0.001), had a greater prevalence of diabetes mellitus (11.0 vs. 5.0%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). They also had a higher ASA classification (2.33 vs. 2.15, <i>p</i> < 0.001), shorter operative time (173.39 vs. 216.20 minutes, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and a higher proportion of outpatient procedures (83.7 vs. 39.5%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Outcome analysis demonstrated fewer total complications in the OPSVR patients (4.2 vs. 10.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), including lower rates of surgical complications (2.2 vs. 8.0%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and wound complications (1.9 vs. 4.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.005) compared with MIBR patients. Multivariate analysis identified OPSVR as an independent protective factor for total, surgical, and wound complications.OPSVR has become a favorable technique for patients with breast cancer. Even in patients with higher comorbidities, OPSVR demonstrates safe and better outcomes when compared with MIBR. It should be considered a reasonable and safe breast surgical option in the appropriate patient.

Journal of Reconstructive MicrosurgeryVol. 41(08)
Tufts Medical Center (US), University of Miami (US), University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US), Universidad Científica del Sur (PE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
1.15
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.