Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Simultaneous Co-surgeon Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) Flap Breast Reconstructions: Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes

  • Reconstructive Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A co-surgeon model is known to be favorable in microvascular breast reconstruction, but simultaneous co-surgeon deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap cases have not been well-studied. The authors hypothesize that performing two simultaneous co-surgeon bilateral DIEP flap reconstructions results in non-inferior clinical outcomes and may improve patient access to care.

Methods

A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed utilizing record review to identify all cases of co-surgeon free-flap breast reconstructions over a 38-month period. Patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstructions with the same two co-surgeons were identified. The control group consisted of subjects who underwent non-simultaneous reconstruction by the same co-surgeons within the same, preceding, or following month of those in the study group. Primary outcome variables were 90-day postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes were operating time, ischemia time, and length of stay. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed.

Results

Overall, 137 subjects were identified and 64 met the inclusion criteria (n = 28 study, n = 36 control). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in body mass index, radiation, trainee experience, flap perforator number, immediate/delayed reconstruction, or length of stay. There were also no statistically significant differences in complications, including flap loss, anastomosis revision, take-back to the operating room, or re-admission. Operative time was longer in the simultaneous DIEP group (540.5 vs. 443.5 min, p < 0.01), but ischemia time was shorter in the simultaneous group (64.0 vs. 80.5 min, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

A simultaneous co-surgeon approach to bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction may improve access to care and does not result in a higher complication rate compared with non-simultaneous bilateral DIEP flaps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):891–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1677.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Guyomard V, Leinster S, Wilkinson M. Systematic review of studies of patients’ satisfaction with breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast. 2007;16(6):547–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2007.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Atisha D, Alderman AK, Lowery JC, Kuhn LE, Davis J, Wilkins EG. Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. Ann Surg. 2008;247(6):1019–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181728a5c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wade RG, Razzano S, Sassoon EM, Haywood RM, Ali RS, Figus A. Complications in DIEP flap breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: a prospective cohort study comparing unilateral versus bilateral reconstructions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(6):1465–74. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5807-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones C, Lancaster R. Evolution of operative technique for mastectomy. Surg Clin North Am. 2018;98(4):835–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2018.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1):9–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2895.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weichman KE, Lam G, Wilson SC, et al. The impact of two operating surgeons on microsurgical breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(2):277–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002946.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Haddock NT, Kayfan S, Pezeshk RA, Teotia SS. Co-surgeons in breast reconstructive microsurgery: What do they bring to the table? Microsurgery. 2018;38(1):14–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mericli AF, Chu CK, Sisk GC, et al. Microvascular breast reconstruction in the era of value-based care: use of a cosurgeon is associated with reduced costs, improved outcomes, and added value. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;149(2):338–48. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008715.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Razdan SN, Panchal HJ, Hespe GE, et al. The impact of the cosurgeon model on bilateral autologous breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33(9):624–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilkins EG, Hamill JB, Kim HM, et al. Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: one-year outcomes of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium (MROC) study. Ann Surg. 2018;267(1):164–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):901–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Halanski MA, Elfman CM, Cassidy JA, Hassan NE, Sund SA, Noonan KJ. Comparing results of posterior spine fusion in patients with AIS: Are two surgeons better than one? J Orthop. 2013;10(2):54–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2013.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ludwig AT, Inampudi L, O’Donnell MA, Kreder KJ, Williams RD, Konety BR. Two-surgeon versus single-surgeon radical cystectomy and urinary diversion: impact on patient outcomes and costs. Urology. 2005;65(3):488–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Takatsuki M, Eguchi S, Yamanouchi K, et al. Two-surgeon technique using saline-linked electric cautery and ultrasonic surgical aspirator in living donor hepatectomy: its safety and efficacy. Am J Surg. 2009;197(2):e25–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.01.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gösseringer N, Mani M, Cali-Cassi L, Papadopoulou A, Rodriguez-Lorenzo A. Benefits of two or more senior microsurgeons operating simultaneously in microsurgical breast reconstruction: experience in a Swedish Medical Center. Microsurgery. 2017;37(5):416–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bauermeister AJ, Zuriarrain A, Newman M, Earle SA, Medina MA. Impact of continuous two-team approach in autologous breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33(4):298–304. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1598199.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chaput B, Bertheuil N, Jacques J, et al. Professional burnout among plastic surgery residents: Can it be prevented? Outcomes of a national survey. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;75(1):2–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000530.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Qureshi HA, Rawlani R, Mioton LM, Dumanian GA, Kim JYS, Rawlani V. Burnout phenomenon in U.S. plastic surgeons: risk factors and impact on quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(2):619–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000855.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Streu R, Hansen J, Abrahamse P, Alderman AK. Professional burnout among US plastic surgeons: results of a national survey. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(3):346–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000056.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zygourakis CC, Lee J, Barba J, Lobo E, Lawton MT. Performing concurrent operations in academic vascular neurosurgery does not affect patient outcomes. J Neurosurg. 2017;127(5):1089–95. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.6.JNS16822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zygourakis CC, Keefe M, Lee J, et al. Comparison of patient outcomes in 3725 overlapping vs 3633 nonoverlapping neurosurgical procedures using a single institution’s clinical and administrative database. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(2):257–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyw067.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Self DM, Ilyas A, Stetler WR. Safety of running two rooms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of overlapping neurosurgical procedures. World Neurosurg. 2018;116:e179–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kulkarni AR, Sears ED, Atisha DM, Alderman AK. Use of autologous and microsurgical breast reconstruction by U.S. plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(3):534–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31829ae03e.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kwok AC, Goodwin IA, Ying J, Agarwal JP. National trends and complication rates after bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction from 2005 to 2012. Am J Surg. 2015;210(3):512–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodore A. Kung MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no financial disclosures, affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, C.S., Al-Nowaylati, AR., Matusko, N. et al. Simultaneous Co-surgeon Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) Flap Breast Reconstructions: Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 31, 5409–5416 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-15266-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-15266-0

Keywords

Navigation