A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Geographic Distance in Immediate Free Flap and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Background: Patient proximity to a surgical center is an important consideration of coordination and delivery of high-quality postoperative care. Implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction require different perioperative resources and may be impacted in a varying manner by distance from the health care center. This study evaluated the impact of geographic distance on clinical and financial outcomes in free flap and implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 176 free flap and 239 implant-based immediate breast reconstructions performed from 2017–2023 at a single academic center. Patients were classified by great-circle distance to the medical center as far (≥30 miles) or near (<30 miles). Propensity score–matched cohorts were created for free flap (n=70 pairs) and implant-based (n=79 pairs) reconstruction, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, treatment variables and laterality. Clinical outcomes, wound complications, revision procedures, opioid use, hospital resource utilization, and financial measures between near and far patients for each reconstruction type were compared using paired t-tests, McNemar’s tests, and exact binomial testing for sparse outcomes. Results: In the flap cohort, near- and far-distance groups did not differ significantly in operative time, length of stay, intensive care use, postoperative communication, emergency department visits, opioid requirements, complication rates, revision procedures, or financial outcomes. Total flap loss and thromboembolic events were rare and did not differ significantly between groups. In the implant-based cohort, there were no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, postoperative communication, emergency department visits, opioid requirements, complication rates, revision procedures, or financial outcomes between groups. Conclusion: Geographic distance was not associated with worse clinical or financial outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction. These findings suggest that high-volume academic centers can deliver consistent reconstructive outcomes across a range of patient proximities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
Published
2026-10-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2972-6028
Primary Topic
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Geographic Distance in Immediate Free Flap and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Eileen Wen, Robert G. DeVito, John T. Stranix, Scott Thomas Hollenbeck et al.
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
article

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Geographic Distance in Immediate Free Flap and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Eileen Wen, Robert G. DeVito, John T. Stranix, Scott Thomas Hollenbeck, Benjamin G. Ke, Chris A. Campbell, Naomi Ghahrai, Aqiyl Mills, Hibo M. Wehelie, Virginia Bailey
article en

Abstract

Background: Patient proximity to a surgical center is an important consideration of coordination and delivery of high-quality postoperative care. Implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction require different perioperative resources and may be impacted in a varying manner by distance from the health care center. This study evaluated the impact of geographic distance on clinical and financial outcomes in free flap and implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 176 free flap and 239 implant-based immediate breast reconstructions performed from 2017–2023 at a single academic center. Patients were classified by great-circle distance to the medical center as far (≥30 miles) or near (<30 miles). Propensity score–matched cohorts were created for free flap (n=70 pairs) and implant-based (n=79 pairs) reconstruction, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, treatment variables and laterality. Clinical outcomes, wound complications, revision procedures, opioid use, hospital resource utilization, and financial measures between near and far patients for each reconstruction type were compared using paired t-tests, McNemar’s tests, and exact binomial testing for sparse outcomes. Results: In the flap cohort, near- and far-distance groups did not differ significantly in operative time, length of stay, intensive care use, postoperative communication, emergency department visits, opioid requirements, complication rates, revision procedures, or financial outcomes. Total flap loss and thromboembolic events were rare and did not differ significantly between groups. In the implant-based cohort, there were no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, postoperative communication, emergency department visits, opioid requirements, complication rates, revision procedures, or financial outcomes between groups. Conclusion: Geographic distance was not associated with worse clinical or financial outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction. These findings suggest that high-volume academic centers can deliver consistent reconstructive outcomes across a range of patient proximities.

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
University of Virginia Health System (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
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.