Flap to Mastectomy Mass: Are Higher Ratios Associated with Greater Breast Reconstruction Satisfaction?

Aaron S. Long; Ann H. Ching; Sacha C. Hauc; Mohammad Ali Mozaffari; Adam H. Junn; Jean Carlo Rivera; Mariana N. Almeida; David P. Alper; Omar Allam; Michael Alperovich

doi:10.1055/a-1885-1540

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Inhaltsverzeichnis

J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(03): 209-213
DOI: 10.1055/a-1885-1540

Original Article

Flap to Mastectomy Mass: Are Higher Ratios Associated with Greater Breast Reconstruction Satisfaction?

Authors

Aaron S. Long‡^*

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Ann H. Ching‡^*

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Sacha C. Hauc

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Mohammad Ali Mozaffari

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Adam H. Junn

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Jean Carlo Rivera

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Mariana N. Almeida

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
David P. Alper

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Omar Allam

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Michael Alperovich

¹Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

Abstract

Background Autologous breast reconstruction is associated with superior patient-reported outcomes compared with prosthetic techniques, but little is known about the relationship between autologous flap mass and patient satisfaction. We hypothesized that a higher differential mass (ratio of flap mass to mastectomy mass) would be associated with greater satisfaction with reconstruction.

Methods In this retrospective study, patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction between 2015 and 2020 with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap completed the BREAST-Q survey. Multivariate linear regression models were used to examine the relationship between differential mass and patient satisfaction. Models controlled for body mass index (BMI), age at surgery, reconstruction size preference, number of surgeries, previous surgery failure, whether the patient underwent radiation therapy, and whether reconstruction was unilateral or bilateral.

Results Overall, 45 patients (70 breasts) completed the BREAST-Q survey. Mean age at reconstruction was 52.2 years and mean time to survey completion following surgery was 21.1 months. Most patients (59.4%) desired a smaller breast after reconstruction. The mean differential mass was +26.3% (flap mass greater than mastectomy mass). Differential mass was positively associated with all satisfaction measures with results being significant for satisfaction with breasts scores (p=0.032).

Conclusion In this preliminary study, a higher ratio of autologous flap mass to mastectomy mass was associated with overall higher patient-reported satisfaction. A 1:1 flap to mastectomy mass ratio may not adequately reapproximate desired breast size or shape. Larger autologous flap mass may be favorable for long-term patient satisfaction, and future studies should investigate the relationship between differential mass and breast esthetics.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - deep inferior epigastric perforator flap - patient reported outcome measure - BREAST-Q

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Pirro O, Mestak O, Vindigni V. et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after implant versus autologous tissue breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (01) e1217
2 Pusic AL, Matros E, Fine N. et al. Patient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (22) 2499-2506
3 Healy C, Allen Sr RJ. The evolution of perforator flap breast reconstruction: twenty years after the first DIEP flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (02) 121-125
4 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (01) 32-38
5 Kroll SS, Sharma S, Koutz C. et al; Evans GRD. Postoperative morphine requirements of free TRAM and DIEP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (02) 338-341
6 Kaplan JL, Allen RJ. Cost-based comparison between perforator flaps and TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105 (03) 943-948
7 Mayo JL, Allen RJ, Sadeghi A. Four-flap breast reconstruction: bilateral stacked DIEP and PAP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (05) e383
8 Ali RS, Garrido A, Ramakrishnan V. Stacked free hemi-DIEP flaps: a method of autologous breast reconstruction in a patient with midline abdominal scarring. Br J Plast Surg 2002; 55 (04) 351-353
9 Figus A, Fioramonti P, Ramakrishnan V. Stacked free SIEA/DIEP flap for unilateral breast reconstruction in a thin patient with an abdominal vertical midline scar. J Reconstr Microsurg 2007; 23 (08) 523-525
10 Haddock NT, Cho MJ, Gassman A, Teotia SS. Stacked profunda artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction in failed or unavailable deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (03) 488e-494e
11 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (02) 345-353
12 Rehnke RD, Groening RM, Van Buskirk ER, Clarke JM. Anatomy of the superficial fascia system of the breast: a comprehensive theory of breast fascial anatomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (05) 1135-1144
13 Halsted WS. I. The results of radical operations for the cure of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg 1907; 46 (01) 1-19
14 Galimberti V, Vicini E, Corso G. et al. Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications. Breast 2017; 34 (Suppl. 01) S82-S84
15 Agrawal A, Grewal M, Sibbering DM, Courtney CA. Surgical and oncological outcome after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer 2013; 13 (06) 478-481
16 Piper M, Peled AW, Foster RD, Moore DH, Esserman LJ. Total skin-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70 (04) 435-437
17 Wang F, Peled AW, Garwood E. et al. Total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: an evolution of technique and assessment of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21 (10) 3223-3230
18 Rozen WM, Rajkomar AK, Anavekar NS, Ashton MW. Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a history in evolution. Clin Breast Cancer 2009; 9 (03) 145-154
19 Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L. et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347 (16) 1227-1232
20 Gerber B, Krause A, Reimer T. et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure. Ann Surg 2003; 238 (01) 120-127
21 Slavin SA, Schnitt SJ, Duda RB. et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction: oncologic risks and aesthetic results in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102 (01) 49-62
22 Kroll SS, Khoo A, Singletary SE. et al. Local recurrence risk after skin-sparing and conventional mastectomy: a 6-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104 (02) 421-425
23 Carlson GW, Bostwick III J, Styblo TM. et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy. Oncologic and reconstructive considerations. Ann Surg 1997; 225 (05) 570-575 , discussion 575–578
24 Chouairi F, Gabrick KS, Avraham T, Markov NP, Alperovich M. Complication profiles by mastectomy indication in tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (04) 682e-687e
25 Schrenk P, Rieger R, Shamiyeh A, Wayand W. Morbidity following sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection for patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 2000; 88 (03) 608-614
26 Hack TF, Cohen L, Katz J, Robson LS, Goss P. Physical and psychological morbidity after axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17 (01) 143-149
27 Weichman KE, Tanna N, Broer PN. et al. Microsurgical breast reconstruction in thin patients: the impact of low body mass indices. J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31 (01) 20-25
28 Pennington DG, Nettle WJ, Lam P. Microvascular augmentation of the blood supply of the contralateral side of the free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap. Ann Plast Surg 1993; 31 (02) 123-126 , discussion 126–127
29 Arnez ZM, Scamp T. The bipedicled free TRAM flap. Br J Plast Surg 1992; 45 (03) 214-218
30 Agarwal JP, Gottlieb LJ. Double pedicle deep inferior epigastric perforator/muscle-sparing TRAM flaps for unilateral breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 58 (04) 359-363
31 Hamdi M, Khuthaila DK, Van Landuyt K, Roche N, Monstrey S. Double-pedicle abdominal perforator free flaps for unilateral breast reconstruction: new horizons in microsurgical tissue transfer to the breast. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60 (08) 904-912 , discussion 913–914
32 Arnez ZM, Khan U, Pogorelec D, Planinsek F. Breast reconstruction using the free superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52 (04) 276-279
33 Chevray PM. Breast reconstruction with superficial inferior epigastric artery flaps: a prospective comparison with TRAM and DIEP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (05) 1077-1083 , discussion 1084–1085

Zusatzmaterial

Supplementary Material (PDF)