Revision Incidence after Immediate Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using National Real-World Data.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2023
01 04 2023
Historique:
medline:
31
3
2023
pubmed:
3
2
2023
entrez:
2
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), large variation is observed in current practices between a direct-to-implant and a two-stage approach (insertion of a breast implant after a tissue expander). This population-based study aimed to compare unplanned short- and long-term revision incidence between direct-to-implant and two-stage IBBR in The Netherlands. All patients who underwent immediate IBBR following a mastectomy between 2015 and 2019 were selected from the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Short- and long-term unplanned revision incidences were studied per immediate IBBR, including revision indications and the total number of additional operations. Confounding by indication was limited using propensity score matching. A total of 4512 breast implants (3948 women) were included, of which 2100 (47%) were for direct-to-implant IBBR and 2412 (53%) were for two-stage IBBR. Median (IQR) follow-up was 29 months (range, 16 to 45 months) and 33 months (range, 21 to 47 months), respectively. Short-term revision incidence was 4.0% and 11.7%, respectively (conditional OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.42%). Long-term revision incidence was 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2 to 12.1%) and 16.4% (95% CI, 14.8 to 17.9%), respectively. In the propensity score-matched cohort, similar results were found. In the direct-to-implant group, more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations than in the two-stage group. Unplanned revision surgery occurred less often after direct-to-implant IBBR, and more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations compared to two-stage IBBR. These results, based on real-world data, are important for improving patient counseling and shared decision-making. Risk, II.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), large variation is observed in current practices between a direct-to-implant and a two-stage approach (insertion of a breast implant after a tissue expander). This population-based study aimed to compare unplanned short- and long-term revision incidence between direct-to-implant and two-stage IBBR in The Netherlands.
METHODS
All patients who underwent immediate IBBR following a mastectomy between 2015 and 2019 were selected from the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Short- and long-term unplanned revision incidences were studied per immediate IBBR, including revision indications and the total number of additional operations. Confounding by indication was limited using propensity score matching.
RESULTS
A total of 4512 breast implants (3948 women) were included, of which 2100 (47%) were for direct-to-implant IBBR and 2412 (53%) were for two-stage IBBR. Median (IQR) follow-up was 29 months (range, 16 to 45 months) and 33 months (range, 21 to 47 months), respectively. Short-term revision incidence was 4.0% and 11.7%, respectively (conditional OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.42%). Long-term revision incidence was 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2 to 12.1%) and 16.4% (95% CI, 14.8 to 17.9%), respectively. In the propensity score-matched cohort, similar results were found. In the direct-to-implant group, more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations than in the two-stage group.
CONCLUSIONS
Unplanned revision surgery occurred less often after direct-to-implant IBBR, and more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations compared to two-stage IBBR. These results, based on real-world data, are important for improving patient counseling and shared decision-making.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Risk, II.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36729987
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009979
pii: 00006534-990000000-01352
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
693-702Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
Becherer BE, van Bommel ACM, Hommes JE, et al. Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) Annual Report 2018. Leiden, The Netherlands: Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing; 2019.
Kamali P, Zettervall SL, Wu W, et al. Differences in the reporting of racial and socioeconomic disparities among three large national databases for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:795–807.
Mylvaganam S, Conroy E, Williamson PR, et al.; iBRA Steering Group. Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire. Breast. 2017;35:182–190.
Ilonzo N, Tsang A, Tsantes S, Estabrook A, Thu Ma AM. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a ten-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes. Breast. 2017;32:7–12.
Mandelbaum AD, Thompson CK, Attai DJ, et al. National trends in immediate breast reconstruction: an analysis of implant-based versus autologous reconstruction after mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:4777–4785.
Susarla SM, Ganske I, Helliwell L, Morris D, Eriksson E, Chun YS. Comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in immediate single-stage versus two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1e–8e.
Davila AA, Mioton LM, Chow G, et al. Immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction compared with one-stage permanent implant breast reconstruction: a multi-institutional comparison of short-term complications. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2013;47:344–349.
Basta MN, Gerety PA, Serletti JM, Kovach SJ, Fischer JP. A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis of outcomes following direct-to-implant versus conventional two-stage implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:1135–1144.
Lee KT, Mun GH. Comparison of one-stage vs two-stage prosthesis-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2016;212:336–344.
Grover R, Padula WV, Van Vliet M, Ridgway EB. Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:709e–723e.
Krishnan NM, Fischer JP, Basta MN, Nahabedian MY. Is single-stage prosthetic reconstruction cost effective? A cost-utility analysis for the use of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction relative to expander-implant reconstruction in postmastectomy patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:537–547.
Killaars RC, Hommes J, van der Hulst RR, Tielemans HJ, Negenborn VL, Piatkowski A. Does 2-stage implant-based breast reconstruction allow for a larger volume of the definite implant compared with 1-stage reconstruction? Ann Plast Surg. 2018;80:481–486.
Dikmans RE, Negenborn VL, Bouman MB, et al. Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: an open-label, phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:251–258.
Mureau MAM; Breast Reconstruction Guideline Working Group. Dutch breast reconstruction guideline. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:290–304.
Rakhorst HA, Mureau MAM, Cooter RD, et al. The new opt-out Dutch National Breast Implant Registry: lessons learnt from the road to implementation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:1354–1360.
Hoeijmakers F, Beck N, Wouters M, Prins HA, Steup WH. National quality registries: how to improve the quality of data? J Thorac Dis. 2018;10:S3490–S3S99.
Piper ML, Roussel LO, Koltz PF, et al. Characterizing infections in prosthetic breast reconstruction: a validity assessment of national health databases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:1345–1353.
Fischer JP, Wes AM, Tuggle CT III, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Risk analysis of early implant loss after immediate breast reconstruction: a review of 14,585 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:983–990.
Suttorp MM, Siegerink B, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW. Graphical presentation of confounding in directed acyclic graphs. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30:1418–1423.
van Buuren S. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. 2nd ed. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2018.
Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393.
Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.
Haneuse S, VanderWeele TJ, Arterburn D. Using the E-value to assess the potential effect of unmeasured confounding in observational studies. JAMA. 2019;321:602–603.
Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.
Gfrerer L, Mattos D, Mastroianni M, et al. Assessment of patient factors, surgeons, and surgeon teams in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:245e–252e.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083–3107.
Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:901–908.
Roostaeian J, Sanchez I, Vardanian A, et al. Comparison of immediate implant placement versus the staged tissue expander technique in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:909e–918e.
Clarke-Pearson EM, Lin AM, Hertl C, Austen WG, Colwell AS. Revisions in implant-based breast reconstruction: how does direct-to-implant measure up? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1690–1699.
Hvilsom GB, Friis S, Frederiksen K, et al. The clinical course of immediate breast implant reconstruction after breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2011;50:1045–1052.
Heyns M, Knight P, Steve AK, Yeung JK. A single preoperative dose of tranexamic acid reduces perioperative blood loss: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2020;273:75–81.
Jordan SW, Khavanin N, Kim JY. Seroma in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1104–1116.
Spronk PE, Begum H, Vishwanath S, et al. Toward international harmonization of breast implant registries: ICOBRA global common dataset. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146:255–267.
McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Riedel E, et al. Predicting complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction: an outcomes analysis based on preoperative clinical risk. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1886–1892.
Fischer JP, Wes AM, Tuggle CT, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Risk analysis and stratification of surgical morbidity after immediate breast reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:780–787.