Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 902–909 | Cite as

Flap Failure and Wound Complications in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A National Perspective

  • Benjamin B. Massenburg
  • Paymon Sanati-Mehrizy
  • Michael J. Ingargiola
  • Jonatan Hernandez Rosa
  • Peter J. Taub
Original Article Breast

Abstract

Purpose

There are many options for breast reconstruction following a mastectomy, and data on outcomes are greatly needed for both the patient and the care provider. This study aims to identify the prevalence and predictors of adverse outcomes in autologous breast reconstruction in order to better inform patients and surgeons when choosing a surgical technique.

Methods

This study retrospectively reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) and identified each autologous breast reconstruction performed between 2005 and 2012. Of the 6855 autologous breast reconstructions, there were 2085 latissimus dorsi (LD) flap procedures, 2464 pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap procedures, and 2306 free flap procedures that met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of complications in each of the three procedures was calculated and compared using χ 2 analysis for binomial categorical variables. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified independent risk factors for adverse outcomes in autologous reconstruction as a whole.

Results

The prevalence of general complications was 10.8 % in LD flaps, 20.6 % in TRAM flaps, and 26.1 % in free flaps for autologous breast reconstruction (p < 0.001). The prevalence of wound complications was 4.3 % in LD flaps, 8.1 % in TRAM flaps, and 6.2 % in free flaps for autologous breast reconstruction (p < 0.001). The prevalence of flap failure was 1.1 % in LD flaps, 2.7 % in TRAM flaps, and 2.4 % in free flaps for autologous breast reconstruction (p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that obesity [odds ratio (OR) 1.495, p = 0.024], hypertension (OR 1.633, p = 0.008), recent surgery (OR 3.431, p < 0.001), and prolonged operative times (OR 1.944, p < 0.001) were independently associated with flap failure in autologous breast reconstruction procedures. When controlling for confounding variables, TRAM flaps were twice as likely (OR 2.279, p = 0.001) and free flaps were three times as likely (OR 3.172, p < 0.001) to experience flap failure when compared to LD flaps.

Conclusions

Latissimus dorsi flaps are associated with the fewest short-term general complications and free flaps are associated with the most short-term general complications in autologous breast reconstruction. Free flaps are the most likely to experience flap failure, though there is no significant difference when compared to pedicled TRAM flaps. Free and TRAM flaps remain as the widely acceptable forms of breast reconstruction in the patient without many risk factors for flap failure or wound complications. The identified risk factors will aid in surgical planning and risk adjustment for both the patient and the care provider. Though many other factors will be taken into consideration with surgical planning of autologous breast reconstruction, the presence of these identified risk factors may encourage the use of a surgical technique associated with fewer adverse outcomes, like the LD flap.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Keywords

Breast reconstruction NSQIP Latissimus dorsi TRAM Free Flap Outcomes Flap failure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

Disclaimer

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP are the source of the data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Maxwell GP (1980) Iginio Tansini and the origin of the latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 65:686–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hammond DC (2009) Latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:1055–1063CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW (1982) Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 69:216–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arnez ZM, Bajec J, Bardsley AF, Scamp T, Webster MH (1991) Experience with 50 free TRAM flap breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:470–478 discussion 9-82 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Miller MJ et al (1994) The free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: one center’s experience with 211 consecutive cases. Ann Plast Surg 32:234–241 discussion 41-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grotting JC, Urist MM, Maddox WA, Vasconez LO (1989) Conventional TRAM flap versus free microsurgical TRAM flap for immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 83:828–841 discussion 42-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmstrom H (1979) The free abdominoplasty flap and its use in breast reconstruction. An experimental study and clinical case report. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 13:423–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nahabedian MY, Dooley W, Singh N, Manson PN (2002) Contour abnormalities of the abdomen after breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps: the role of muscle preservation. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:91–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nahabedian MY, Tsangaris T, Momen B (2005) Breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap or the muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM flap: is there a difference? Plast Reconstr Surg 115:436–444 discussion 45-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massenburg BB, Sanati-Mehrizy P, Taub PJ (2015) Flap failure in 2013: A perfect year for ACS NSQIP Microsurgeons? Plast Reconstr SurgGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spear SL, Ducic I, Cuoco F, Hannan C (2005) The effect of smoking on flap and donor-site complications in pedicled TRAM breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:1873–1880CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang DW, Reece GP, Wang B et al (2000) Effect of smoking on complications in patients undergoing free TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2374–2380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schaverien MV, McCulley SJ (2014) Effect of obesity on outcomes of free autologous breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Microsurgery 34:484–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang DW, Wang B, Robb GL et al (2000) Effect of obesity on flap and donor-site complications in free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:1640–1648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheflan M, Kalisman M (1984) Complications of breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 11:343–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Medzhitov R (2008) Origin and physiological roles of inflammation. Nature 24(454):428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mraz M, Haluzik M (2014) The role of adipose tissue immune cells in obesity and low-grade inflammation. J Endocrinol 222:R113–R127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feihl F, Liaudet L, Levy BI, Waeber B (2008) Hypertension and microvascular remodelling. Cardiovasc Res 1(78):274–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nelson JA, Chung CU, Fischer JP, Kanchwala SK, Serletti JM, Wu LC (2014) Wound healing complications after autologous breast reconstruction: a model to predict risk. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet SurgGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haak T, Jungmann E, Raab C, Usadel KH (1994) Elevated endothelin-1 levels after cigarette smoking. Metab Clin Exp 43:267–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sorensen LT (2012) Wound healing and infection in surgery: the pathophysiological impact of smoking, smoking cessation, and nicotine replacement therapy: a systematic review. Ann Surg 255:1069–1079CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Song JW, Chung KC (2010) Observational studies: cohort and case-control studies. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:2234–2242PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE et al (2010) Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 210:6–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sellers MM, Merkow RP, Halverson A et al (2013) Validation of new readmission data in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 216:420–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin B. Massenburg
    • 1
  • Paymon Sanati-Mehrizy
    • 1
  • Michael J. Ingargiola
    • 2
  • Jonatan Hernandez Rosa
    • 2
  • Peter J. Taub
    • 2
  1. 1.Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Mount Sinai HospitalIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations