Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 384–388 | Cite as

Tumescent Technique Does Not Increase the Risk of Complication Following Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction

  • Nima Khavanin
  • Neil A. Fine
  • Kevin P. Bethke
  • Alexei S. Mlodinow
  • Seema A. Khan
  • Jacqueline S. Jeruss
  • Nora M. Hansen
  • John Y. S. Kim
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Despite the growing interest in the advantages of tumescent mastectomy technique, there remain concerns that tumescent solution may increase postoperative complication rates. This study evaluates patient outcomes following tumescent mastectomy in the setting of immediate prosthetic reconstruction.

Methods

Retrospective review of 1,491 breasts (1,030 patients) treated by 4 oncologic and 2 reconstructive surgeons between 2004 and 2012 at a single institution. The primary outcomes of interest included seroma, hematoma, infection, and mastectomy flap necrosis, as well as conversion to autologous reconstruction. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine the adjusted influence of tumescence on outcomes.

Results

The tumescent cohort (n = 890 breasts) was younger and experienced lower rates of preoperative radiation than the nontumescent cohort (n = 601 breasts). Mean follow-up was 21.2 months. While tumescent procedures were on average 20 min faster, postoperative complication rates did not significantly differ between cohorts. Regression analysis controlling for potential confounders, including differences in surgeon technique, failed to identify tumescent mastectomy as an independent risk factor for complication [odds ratio (OR) = 1.2, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.8–1.8, p = 0.385]. Individually, neither seroma, hematoma, infection, nor flap necrosis was affected significantly by the use of tumescence (OR = 1.66, 95 % CI = 0.73–3.78, p = 0.229; OR = 1.11, 95 % CI = 0.42–2.95, p = 0.837; OR = 0.84, 95 % CI = 0.4–1.75, p = 0.689; OR = 1.19, 95 % CI = 0.7–2.03, p = 0.67, respectively).

Discussion

This longitudinal study is well equipped to assess the influence of tumescent mastectomy technique in the hands of experienced and high-volume oncologic surgeons on postoperative outcomes. Our analysis suggests that in the setting of an immediate prosthetic reconstruction, tumescent mastectomy does not independently affect postoperative complication rates.

Keywords

Postoperative Complication Rate Acellular Dermal Matrix Flap Necrosis Postmastectomy Radiation Prosthetic Reconstruction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

DISCLOSURE

John Y. S. Kim receives research funding from Mentor and the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:15–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pinsolle V, Grinfeder C, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Faucher A. Complications analysis of 266 immediate breast reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg. 2006;59:1017–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies K, Allan L, Roblin P, Ross D, Farhadi J. Factors affecting post-operative complications following skin sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. Breast. 2011;20:21–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry T, Brooks S, Sydow N, et al. Complication rates of radiation on tissue expander and autologous tissue breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 3):202–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Worland RG. Expanded utilization of the tumescent technique for mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98:1321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlson GW. Total mastectomy under local anesthesia: the tumescent technique. Breast J. 2005;11:100–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shoher A, Hekier R, Lucci A Jr. Mastectomy performed with scissors following tumescent solution injection. J Surg Oncol. 2003;83:191–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staradub VL, Morrow M. Modified radical mastectomy with knife technique. Arch Surg. 2002;137:105–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paige KT, Bostwick J III, Bried JT. TRAM flap breast reconstruction: tumescent technique reduces blood loss and transfusion requirement. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1645–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kurtz SB, Frost DB. A comparison of two surgical techniques for performing mastectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1995;21:143–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jabs D, Richards BG, Richards FD. Quantitative effects of tumescent infiltration and bupivicaine injection in decreasing postoperative pain in submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2008;28:528–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosaeg OP, Bell M, Cicutti NJ, Dennehy KC, Lui AC, Krepski B. Pre-incision infiltration with lidocaine reduces pain and opioid consumption after reduction mammoplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1998;23:575–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Metaxotos NG, Asplund O, Hayes M. The efficacy of bupivacaine with adrenaline in reducing pain and bleeding associated with breast reduction: a prospective trial. Br J Plast Surg. 1999;52:290–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abbott AM, Miller BT, Tuttle TM. Outcomes after tumescence technique versus electrocautery mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2607–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Back D, Golshan M, Christian R, et al. Post-operative outcomes of mastectomy with breast tumescence infiltration. Presented at 29th San Antonio Breast Conference, Dec 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Use of tumescent mastectomy technique as a risk factor for native breast skin flap necrosis following immediate breast reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2011;201:160–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seth AK, Hirsch EM, Fine NA, et al. Additive risk of tumescent technique in patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3041–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Munhoz AM, Gemperli R, Filassi JR. Comment on: use of tumescent mastectomy technique as a risk factor for native breast skin flap necrosis after immediate breast reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2012;204:549–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Myers MB, Brock D, Cohn I Jr. Prevention of skin slough after radical mastectomy by the use of a vital dye to delineate devascularized skin. Ann Surg. 1971;173:920–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nima Khavanin
    • 1
  • Neil A. Fine
    • 1
  • Kevin P. Bethke
    • 2
  • Alexei S. Mlodinow
    • 1
  • Seema A. Khan
    • 2
  • Jacqueline S. Jeruss
    • 2
  • Nora M. Hansen
    • 2
  • John Y. S. Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Lynn Sage Breast Center, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations