Advertisement

Body mass index impacts infection rates in immediate autogenous breast reconstruction

  • Lauren I. Willoughby
  • Josephine A. D’AbbondanzaEmail author
  • Healther L. Baltzer
  • James L. Mahoney
  • Melinda A. Musgrave
Epidemiology
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Risk of postoperative infection following breast cancer reconstruction warrants consideration of both classic and procedure-specific risk factors. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with breast cancer over a 10-year period that underwent reconstructive surgery to identify factors that increase risk of postoperative infection.

Methods

Rates of postoperative infection were assessed in primary (immediate or delayed, alloplastic or autogenous) and secondary reconstructive procedures. Patient characteristics, surgical details, and cancer features were analyzed using two-sample t test and Fisher’s exact test for continuous and categorical data, respectively.

Results

456 procedures were performed on 264 patients with 29 cases of postoperative infection (6%). Infection was more likely to occur in earlier reconstructive procedures (p < 0.03). Overall, primary reconstructive procedures were associated with a higher infection rate (p = 0.005). Other associated risk factors included: autogenous reconstruction (p < 0.018), length of admission (p < 0.001) and immediate reconstruction (p = 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed increased risk of infection with immediate autogenous reconstruction (p < 0.03). Furthermore, patients with greater body mass index (BMI) receiving immediate autogenous reconstruction had a greater risk of infection (p < 0.003). Factors unrelated to risk of infection included history of irradiation, smoking, cancer stage, tumor type and tumor size.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that risk of infection is higher in immediate autogenous reconstructions particularly when patients are overweight (BMI > 30). Our data do not support a relationship between infection and irradiation, features of cancer, or repeated reconstructive procedures. Prospective studies may be required to further validate these findings.

Keywords

Breast cancer Breast reconstruction Infection Body mass index 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Lauren I. Whilloughby, MD, FRCS(C), Josephine A. D’Abbondanza, MD, MSc declares , Heather L. Baltzer, MD, MSc, FRCS(C), James L. Mahoney, MD, FRCS(C), and Melinda A. Musgrave, MD, PhD, FRCS(C) declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Baxter N, Goel V, Semple JL (2005) Utilization and regional variation of breast reconstruction in Canada. Plast Reconstr Surg 115(1):338–339Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnsley GP, Sigurdson L, Kirkland S (2008) Barriers to breast reconstruction after mastectomy in Nova Scotia. Can J Surg 51(6):447–452Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gieni M, Avram R, Dickson L et al (2012) Local breast cancer recurrence after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for invasive cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast 21(3):230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Platt J, Baxter NN, McLaughlin J, Semple JL (2015) Does breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer affect overall survival? Long-term follow-up of a retrospective population-based cohort. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(3):468e–476eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morrow M, Li Y, Alderman AK et al (2014) Access to breast reconstruction after mastectomy and patient perspectives on reconstruction decision making. JAMA Surg 149(10):1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Platt J, Baxter N, Zhong T (2011) Breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer. CMAJ 183(18):2109–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Platt J, Zhong T, Moineddin R et al (2015) Geographic variation immediate and delayed breast reconstruction utilization in Ontario, Canada and plastic surgeon availability: a population-based observational study. World J Surg 39(8):1909–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O’Fallon WM, Beard CM, Kurland LT, Melton LJ (1997) Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 336(10):677–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Olsen MA, Lefta M, Dietz JR et al (2008) Risk factors for surgical site infection after major breast operation. J Am Coll Surg 207(3):326–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson JA, Chung CU, Fischer JP, Kanchwala SK, Serletti JM, Wu LC (2015) Wound healing complications after autologous breast reconstruction: a model to predict risk. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(4):531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huo J, Smith BD, Giordano SH, Reece GP, Shih YCT (2016) Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction and its subsequent complications: a comparison between obese and non-obese women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 157(2):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Francis SH, Ruberg RL, Stevenson KB et al (2009) Independent risk factors for infection in tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(6):1790–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Armstrong RW, Berkowitz RL, Bolding F (1989) Infection following breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 23(4):284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lefebvre D, Penel N, Deberles MF, Fournier C (2000) Incidence and surgical wound infection risk factors in breast cancer surgery. Press Med. 29(35):1927–1932Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mortenson MM, Schneider PD, Khatri VP et al (2004) Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy increases wound complications: however, initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy is not delayed. Arch Surg 139(9):988–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costerton JW, Montanaro L, Arciola CR (2005) Biofilm in implant infections: its production and regulation. Int J Artif Organs 28:1062–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Costa MA, Rommer E, Peric M et al (2013) Incidence of surgical-site infection is not affected by method of immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 132(1):20e–29eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ilonzo N, Tsang A, Tsantes S, Estabrook A, Thu Ma AM (2017) Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a ten-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes. Breast 32:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bertin ML, Crowe J, Gordon SM (1998) Determinants of surgical site infection after breast surgery. Am J Infect Control 26(1):61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vilar-Compte D, Jacquemin B, Robles-Vidal C, Volkow P (2004) Surgical site infections in breast surgery: case–control study. World J Surg 28(3):242–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vilar-Compte D, Rosales S, Hernandez-Mello N, Maafs E, Volkow P (2009) Surveillance, control, and prevention of surgical site infections in breast cancer surgery: a 5-year experience. Am J Infect Control 37(8):674–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tong W, Baumann D, Villa M et al (2016) Obese women experience fewer complications after oncoplastic breast repair following partial mastectomy than after immediate total breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(3):777–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pinsolle V, Grinfeder C, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Faucher A (2006) Complications analysis of 266 immediate breast reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 59(10):1017–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of SurgeryMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations