Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 869–876 | Cite as

Free Versus Pedicled TRAM Flaps: Cost Utilization and Complications

  • Samuel Golpanian
  • David J. Gerth
  • Jun Tashiro
  • Seth R. ThallerEmail author
Original Article Breast

Abstract

Introduction

Conventionally, free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (fTRAM) flap breast reconstruction has been associated with decreased donor site morbidity and improved flap inset. However, clinical success depends upon more sophisticated technical expertise and facilities. This study aims to characterize postoperative outcomes undergoing free versus pedicled TRAM (pTRAM) flap breast reconstruction.

Methods

Nationwide inpatient sample database (2008–2011) was reviewed for cases of fTRAM (ICD-9-CM 85.73) and pTRAM (85.72) breast reconstruction. Inclusion criteria were females undergoing pTRAM or fTRAM breast reconstruction; males were excluded. We examined demographics, hospital setting, insurance information, patient income, and comorbidities. Clinical endpoints included postoperative complications, length-of-stay (LOS), and total charges (TC). Bivariate/multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors associated with increased complications and resource utilization.

Results

Overall, 21,655 cases were captured. Seventy-percent were Caucasian, 95 % insured, and 72 % treated in an urban teaching hospital. There were 9 pTRAM and 6 fTRAM in-hospital mortalities. On bivariate analysis, the fTRAM cohort was more likely to be obese (OR 1.2), undergo revision (OR 5.9), require hemorrhage control (OR 5.7), suffer hematoma complications (OR 1.9), or wound infection (OR 1.8) (p < 0.003). The pTRAM cohort was more likely to suffer pneumonia (OR 1.6) and pulmonary embolism (OR 2.0) (p < 0.004). Reconstruction type did not affect risk of flap loss or seroma occurrence. TC were higher with fTRAM (p < 0.001). LOS was not affected by procedure type. On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, fTRAM was an independent risk factor for increased LOS (OR 1.6), TC (OR 1.8), and postoperative complications (OR 1.3) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Free TRAM has an increased risk of postoperative complications and resource utilization versus pTRAM on the current largest risk-adjusted analysis. Further analyses are required to elucidate additional factors influencing outcomes following these procedures.

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 A3 online Instructions to Authors.www.springer.com/00266.

Keywords

Autologous breast reconstruction Free TRAM Pedicled TRAM Cost utilization Complications Length of stay 

Notes

Authors contributions

S.G. contributed to data analysis, writing manuscript, and final draft editing. D.J.G. contributed to study design, data analysis, and final draft editing. J.T. contributed to study design, statistical analysis, and data analysis. S.R.T. contributed to study design, final draft editing, and overseeing study project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kroll SS, Coffey JA Jr, Winn RJ, Schusterman MA (1995) A comparison of factors affecting aesthetic outcomes of tram flap breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:860–864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eberlein TJ, Crespo LD, Smith BL, Hergrueter CA, Douville L, Eriksson E (1993) Prospective evaluation of immediate reconstruction after mastectomy. Ann Surg 218:29–36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hidalgo DA (1998) Aesthetic refinement in breast reconstruction: complete skin-sparing mastectomy with autogenous tissue transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg 102(1):63–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilkins EG, August DA, Kuzon WM Jr, Chang AE, Smith DJ (1995) Immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction after mastectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180:177–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Kim M, Davis JA (2000) Determinants of patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:769–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kroll SS, Baldwin B (1992) A comparison of outcomes using three different methods of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 90:455–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Namnoum JD (2007) Breast reconstruction: tram flap techniques. In: Thorne CH (ed) Grabb and smith’s plastic surgery. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 641–647Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Macadam SA, Zhong T, Weichman K, Papsdorf M, Lennox PA, Hazen A, Matros E, Disa J, Mehrara B, Pusic AL (2016) Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer survivors: a multicenter comparison of four abdominally based autologous reconstruction methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:758–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    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(5):828–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elliott LF, Eskenazi L, Beegle PH Jr, Podres PE, Drazan L (1993) Immediate tram flap breast reconstruction: 128 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:217–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Weldon ME (1992) Immediate breast reconstruction: Why the free TRAM over the conventional TRAM flap? Plast Reconstr Surg 90(2):255–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gart MS, Smetona JT, Hanwright PJ, Fine NA, Bethke KP, Khan SA, Wang E, Kim JY (2013) Autologous options for postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparison of outcomes based on the american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg 216:229–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kroll SS, Evans GR, Reece GP, Miller MJ, Robb G, Baldwin BJ, Schusterman MA (1996) Comparison of resource costs between implant-based and tram flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 97:364–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alderman AK, Kalliainen L (2014) Discussion: comparative analysis of 18-month outcomes and costs of breast reconstruction flap procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:480–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sando IC, Chung KC, Kidwell KM, Kozlow JH, Malay S, Momoh AO (2014) Comprehensive breast reconstruction in an academic surgical practice: an evaluation of the financial impact. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:1131–1139CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Israeli R, Funk S, Reaven NL (2014) Comparative analysis of 18-month outcomes and costs of breast reconstruction flap procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:471–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grover R, Padula WV, Van Vliet M, Ridgway EB (2013) Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:709e–723eCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alderman AK, Hu E, Atisha D, Wilkins EG (2007) Surgical outcomes of breast reconstruction: comparison of autogenous tissue and expander/implant techniques. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 7:385–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hcup databases. Healthcare cost and utilization project (hcup) (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Polednak AP (2000) Geographic variation in postmastectomy breast reconstruction rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:298–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilkins EG, Alderman AK (2004) Breast reconstruction practices in north america: current trends and future priorities. Semin Plast Surg 18:149–155CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Masoomi H, Wirth GA, Paydar KZ, Richland BK, Evans GR (2014) Perioperative outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction surgery in teaching versus nonteaching hospitals. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:514e–520eCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amey CH, Miller MK, Albrecht SL (1997) The role of race and residence in determining stage at diagnosis of breast cancer. J Rural Health 13:99–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mitchell JB, Khandker RK (1995) Black–white treatment differences in acute myocardial infarction. Healthc Financ Rev 17:61–70Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hargraves JL, Cunningham PJ, Hughes RG (2001) Racial and ethnic differences in access to medical care in managed care plans. Health Serv Res 36:853–868PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shippee TP, Kozhimannil KB, Rowan K, Virnig BA (2014) Health insurance coverage and racial disparities in breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Women’s Health Issues 24:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alderman AK, Storey AF, Nair NS, Chung KC (2009) Financial impact of breast reconstruction on an academic surgical practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1408–1413CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shubinets V, Fox JP, Sarik JR, Kovach SJ, Fischer JP (2016) Surgically treated hernia following abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction: prevalence, outcomes, and expenditures. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:749–757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chang DW, Wang B, Robb GL, Reece GP, Miller MJ, Evans GR, Langstein HN, Kroll SS (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
  31. 31.
    Kroll SS, Netscher DT (1989) Complications of tram flap breast reconstruction in obese patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:886–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hartrampf CR Jr, Bennett GK (1987) Autogenous tissue reconstruction in the mastectomy patient. a critical review of 300 patients. Ann Surg 205:508–519CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scheflan M, Kalisman M (1984) Complications of breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 11:343–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kroll SS (1994) Necrosis of abdominoplasty and other secondary flaps after tram flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:637–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hanwright PJ, Davila AA, Hirsch EM, Khan SA, Fine NA, Bilimoria KY, Kim JY (2013) The differential effect of bmi on prosthetic versus autogenous breast reconstruction: a multivariate analysis of 12,986 patients. Breast 22:938–945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gherardini G, Arnander C, Gylbert L, Wickman M (1994) Pedicled compared with free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps in breast reconstruction. Scand J Plast Reconst Surg Hand Surg 28(1):69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Banic A, Boeckx W, Greulich M, Guelickx P, Marchi A, Rigotti G, Tschopp H (1995) Late results of breast reconstruction with free tram flaps: a prospective multicentric study. Plast Reconstr Surg 95:1195–1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Massenburg BB, Sanati-Mehrizy P, Ingargiola MJ, Rosa JH, Taub PJ (2015) Flap failure and wound complications in autologous breast reconstruction: a national perspective. Aesthet Plast Surg 39:902–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Andrades P, Fix RJ, Danilla S, Howell RE 3rd, Campbell WJ, De la Torre J, Vasconez LO (2008) Ischemic complications in pedicle, free, and muscle sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 60:562–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baldwin BJ, Schusterman MA, Miller MJ, Kroll SS, Wang BG (1994) Bilateral breast reconstruction: conventional versus free tram. Plast Reconstr Surg 93:1410–1416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rosen PB, Jabs AD, Kister SJ, Hugo NE (1990) Clinical experience with immediate breast reconstruction using tissue expansion or transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps. Ann Plast Surg 25:249–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mioton LM, Smetona JT, Hanwright PJ, Seth AK, Wang E, Bilimoria KY, Gaido J, Fine NA, Kim JY (2013) Comparing thirty-day outcomes in prosthetic and autologous breast reconstruction: a multivariate analysis of 13,082 patients? J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 66:917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Greco JA 3rd, Castaldo ET, Nanney LB, Wu YC, Donahue R, Wendel JJ, Hagan KF, Shack RB (2008) Autologous breast reconstruction: the vanderbilt experience (1998 to 2005) of independent predictors of displeasing outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 207:49–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ascherman JA, Seruya M, Bartsich SA (2008) Abdominal wall morbidity following unilateral and bilateral breast reconstruction with pedicled tram flaps: an outcomes analysis of 117 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Selber JC, Kurichi JE, Vega SJ, Sonnad SS, Serletti JM (2006) Risk factors and complications in free tram flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 56:492–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Harashina T, Fujino T, Watanabe S (1976) The intimal healing of microvascular anastomoses. Plast Reconstr Surg 58:608–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Liao EC, Taghinia AH, Nguyen LP, Yueh JH, May JW Jr, Orgill DP (2008) Incidence of hematoma complication with heparin venous thrombosis prophylaxis after tram flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1101–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sharma S, Chang DW, Koutz C, Evans GR, Robb GL, Langstein HN, Kroll SS (2001) Incidence of hematoma associated with ketorolac after tram flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:352–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shultz KJ, Don S, Mahabir RC, Verheyden CN (2014) Pulmonary function after pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000310 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ford GT, Rosenal TW, Clergue F, Whitelaw WA (1993) Respiratory physiology in upper abdominal surgery. Clin Chest Med 14:237–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Munegato G, Brandolese R (2001) Respiratory physiopathology in surgical repair for large incisional hernias of the abdominal wall. J Am Coll Surg 192:298–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ridings PC, Bloomfield GL, Blocher CR, Sugerman HJ (1995) Cardiopulmonary effects of raised intra-abdominal pressure before and after intravascular volume expansion. J Trauma 39:1071–1075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Losken A, Carlson GW, Tyrone JW, Jones GE, Culbertson JH, Beegle PH Jr, Elliott LF 2nd (2005) The significance of intraabdominal compartment pressure after free versus pedicled tram flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 115:261–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Losken A, Carlson GW, Jones GE, Hultman CS, Culbertson JH, Bostwick J 3rd (2002) Significance of intraabdominal compartment pressures following tram flap breast reconstruction and the correlation of results. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2257–2264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pannucci CJ, Alderman AK, Brown SL, Wakefield TW, Wilkins EG (2012) The effect of abdominal wall plication on intra-abdominal pressure and lower extremity venous flow: a case report. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65:392–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lemaine V, McCarthy C, Kaplan K, Mehrara B, Pusic AL, Cordeiro PG, Disa JJ (2011) Venous thromboembolism following microsurgical breast reconstruction: an objective analysis in 225 consecutive patients using low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1399–1406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim EK, Eom JS, Ahn SH, Son BH, Lee TJ (2009) The efficacy of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent pulmonary thromboembolism in immediate breast reconstruction using the tram flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:9–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Agnelli G, Bolis G, Capussotti L, Scarpa RM, Tonelli F, Bonizzoni E, Moia M, Parazzini F, Rossi R, Sonaglia F, Valarani B, Bianchini C, Gussoni G (2006) A clinical outcome-based prospective study on venous thromboembolism after cancer surgery: the @RISTOS project. Ann Surg 243:89–95CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kroll SS, Evans GR, Reece GP, Miller MJ, Robb GL, Baldwin BJ, Schusterman MA (1996) Comparison of resource costs of free and conventional tram flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 98:74–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Serletti JM, Moran SL (1997) Free versus the pedicled tram flap: A cost comparison and outcome analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:1418–1424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Grotting JC (1994) Immediate breast reconstruction using the free tram flap. Clin Plast Surg 21:207–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Arnez ZM, Bajec J, Bardsley AF, Scamp T, Webster MH (1991) Experience with 50 free tram flap breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:470–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Larson DL, Yousif NJ, Sinha RK, Latoni J, Korkos TG (1999) A comparison of pedicled and free tram flaps for breast reconstruction in a single institution. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:674–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Knight MA, Nguyen DTt, Kobayashi MR, Evans GR (2006) Institutional review of free tram flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 56:593–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Galla TJ, Lukas B, Feller AM (1999) Pedicled versus free tram flap for breast reconstruction. Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie: Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie: Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse 31:126–133Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Halls MJ (2000) A comparison of pedicle and free tram flaps for breast reconstruction in a single institution. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:1573–1574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Feller AM (1994) Free tram. results and abdominal wall function. Clin Plast Surg 21:223–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Khouri RK, Cooley BC, Kunselman AR, Landis JR, Yeramian P, Ingram D, Natarajan N, Benes CO, Wallemark C (1998) A prospective study of microvascular free-flap surgery and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:711–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Yoon CS, Kim KN (2016) Selective salvage of zones 2 and 4 in the pedicled tram flap: a focus on reducing fat necrosis and improving aesthetic outcomes. SpringerPlus 5:68CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Beasley ME (1994) The pedicled tram as preference for immediate autogenous tissue breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 21:191–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mizgala CL, Hartrampf CR Jr, Bennett GK (1994) Assessment of the abdominal wall after pedicled tram flap surgery: 5 to 7-year follow-up of 150 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 93:988–1002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Golpanian
    • 1
  • David J. Gerth
    • 1
  • Jun Tashiro
    • 1
  • Seth R. Thaller
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Plastic, Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery, DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of SurgeryUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations