Comparing Direct-to-Implant and Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction in the Australian Breast Device Registry

被引:6
|
作者
Hoque, Sheymonti S. [1 ]
Zhou, Jieyun [2 ]
Gartoulla, Pragya [1 ]
Hansen, Jessy [1 ]
Farrell, Gillian [1 ]
Hopper, Ingrid [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourn, Vic, Australia
[2] Peter MacCallum Canc Ctr, Plast & Reconstruct Surg Unit, Melbourn, Vic, Australia
[3] 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
关键词
ACELLULAR DERMAL MATRIX; TISSUE EXPANDER; SINGLE-STAGE; CAPSULAR CONTRACTURE; OUTCOMES; AUGMENTATION; PLACEMENT;
D O I
10.1097/PRS.0000000000010066
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background:There remains a lack of clarity surrounding the benefits, risks, and outcomes between two-stage expander/implant reconstruction and single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction. This study used a national data set to examine real-world outcomes of two-stage and DTI reconstructions. Methods:A cohort study was conducted examining patients in the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) from 2015 to 2018 who underwent prosthetic breast reconstruction following mastectomy. DTI and two-stage cohorts after definitive implant insertion were compared. Rate of revision surgery, reasons for revision, and patient-reported outcome measures were recorded. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Fisher exact or chi-square, Wilcoxon rank sum, or t tests; Nelson-Aalen cumulative incidence estimates; and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results:A total of 5152 breast reconstructions were recorded, including 3093 two-stage and 2059 DTI reconstructions. Overall revision surgery rates were 15.6% for DTI (median follow-up, 24.7 months), compared with 9.7% in the two-stage cohort (median follow-up, 26.5 months; P < 0.001). The most common reasons for revision for DTI and two-stage reconstruction were capsular contracture (25.2% versus 26.7%; P = 0.714) and implant malposition (26.7% versus 34.3%; P = 0.045). Multivariate analysis found acellular dermal matrix use (P = 0.028) was significantly associated with a higher risk of revision. The influence of radiotherapy on revision rates was unable to be studied. Patient satisfaction levels were similar between reconstructive groups; however, patient experience was better in the DTI cohort than in the two-stage cohort. Conclusions:The ABDR data set demonstrated that DTI reconstruction had a higher revision rate than two-stage, but with comparable patient satisfaction and better patient experience. Capsular contracture and device malposition were leading causes of revision in both cohorts.
引用
收藏
页码:927 / 937
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
    Colwell, Amy S.
    Christensen, Joani M.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 140 (05) : 44S - 50S
  • [22] Revision Incidence after Immediate Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using National Real-World Data
    Becherer, Babette E.
    Heeg, Erik A.
    Young-Afat, Danny A.
    Peeters, Marie-Jeanne T. F. D. Vrancken
    Rakhorst, Hinne A.
    Mureau, Marc A. M.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2023, 151 (04) : 693 - 702
  • [23] Direct-to-Implant as a Frontline Option for Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Study With 2-Stage Reconstruction
    Han, Hyun Ho
    Kim, Hyung Bae
    Kim, Eun Key
    Eom, Jin Sup
    ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2018, 81 (03) : 274 - 279
  • [24] Immediate Direct-To-Implant Breast Reconstruction Using Anatomical Implants
    Kim, Sung-Eun
    Jung, Dong-Woo
    Chung, Kyu-Jin
    Lee, Jun Ho
    Kim, Tae Gon
    Kim, Yong-Ha
    Lee, Soo Jung
    Kang, Su Hwan
    Choi, Jung Eun
    ARCHIVES OF PLASTIC SURGERY-APS, 2014, 41 (05): : 529 - 534
  • [25] Postoperative Complications of Direct-to-Implant and Two-Staged Breast Reconstruction: A Stratified Analysis
    Bryan, Jaimie L.
    Ockerman, Kyle M.
    Spiguel, Lisa R.
    Cox, Elizabeth A.
    Han, Sabrina H.
    Trieu, Nhan
    Fernandez, Mario Blondin
    Heath, Frederick
    Sorice-Virk, Sarah
    PLASTIC SURGERY, 2024,
  • [26] Letter-to-the-Editor: Two-Stage Expander-Based (EB) or Single-Stage Direct-to-Implant (DTI) Breast Reconstruction-An Ongoing Debate
    Atiyeh, Bishara
    Emsieh, Saif
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2023, 47 (SUPPL 1) : 154 - 158
  • [27] A Comparative Analysis between Subpectoral versus Prepectoral Single Stage Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction
    Kim, Jeong-Hoon
    Hong, Seung Eun
    MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2020, 56 (10): : 1 - 10
  • [28] Intraoperative Autoderm Decontamination for Use in Immediate Single-stage Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction
    Diaz-Abele, Julian
    Padalko, Adam
    Dalke, Kimberly
    Brichacek, Michal
    Buchel, Edward W.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2020, 8 (07)
  • [29] A simple clinical assessment of breast animation deformity following direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
    Dyrberg, Diana Lydia
    Gunnarsson, Gudjon Leifur
    Bille, Camilla
    Sorensen, Jens Ahm
    Thomsen, Jorn Bo
    ARCHIVES OF PLASTIC SURGERY-APS, 2019, 46 (06): : 535 - 543
  • [30] Discussion: Revision Incidence after Immediate Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using National Real-World Data
    Haddock, Nicholas T.
    Teotia, Sumeet S.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2023, 151 (04) : 703 - 704