Surgeon Experience and Outcomes in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: A 10-Year Single Surgeon Analysis

Abstract

Background

Microsurgical breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps has become increasingly popular. While surgeons undergo rigorous training, it is believed that plastic surgeons continue to refine and enhance their performance through independent practice. This study evaluates the effect of surgeon experience on clinical outcomes in DIEP flap breast reconstruction.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive DIEP flap procedures performed by a single surgeon from fellowship completion in 2013 to 10 years of independent professional practice in 2023. Patients were categorized into “early” and “late” groups, separated by a midpoint surgery date (July 30, 2018). Statistical analyses included student's t-tests, chi-squared analysis with Fisher's exact test, and multivariable regressions controlling for comorbidities.

Results

The study included a total of 1,182 DIEP flaps in 632 patients, with 238 in the early group and 394 in the late group. The late group had a lower mean body mass index (28.83 vs. 29.98, p = 0.004), prevalence of hypertension (26.6% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.021), and prevalence of diabetes (7.9% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.010) than the early group. After controlling for potential confounders, the late group was independently associated with decreased length of stay (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.611, p < 0.001) and fewer revision surgeries (IRR = 0.689, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This large, single-surgeon series demonstrates that even with extensive initial training, plastic surgeons continue to evolve their surgical outcomes through accumulated experience. These findings emphasize the importance of consistent volume over time in achieving optimal results in microsurgical breast reconstruction.

Keywords

microsurgical breast reconstruction - surgeon experience - learning curve

Note

This manuscript has not been presented at any meetings.

Publication History

Received: 26 December 2024

Accepted: 17 August 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
21 August 2025

Article published online:
03 September 2025

• References

• 1 Tanna N, Sultan DL, Minasian RA. et al. Contemporary microsurgical breast reconstruction: abdominally based flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024; 154 (01) 199e-214e
• 2 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
• 3 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (01) 32-38
• 4 Zhang A, Dayicioglu D. Outcomes of 270 consecutive deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (Suppl. 06) S388-S394
• 5 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) 891-899
• 6 Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EVA. et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (15) 1128-1137
• 7 Tanna N, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J, Perry AD, Crisera CA. The volume-outcome relationship for immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (01) 19-24
• 8 Mahmoudi E, Lu Y, Chang S-C. et al. The associations of hospital volume, surgeon volume, and surgeon experience with complications and 30-day rehospitalization after free tissue transfer: a national population study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (02) 403-411
• 9 Akita S, Kumamaru H, Motomura H, Mitsukawa N, Morimoto N, Sakuraba M. The volume-outcome relationship in free-flap reconstruction: a nationwide study based on the clinical database. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2023; 85: 500-507
• 10 Busic V, Das-Gupta R, Mesic H, Begic A. The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction, the learning curve explored. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59 (06) 580-584
• 11 Hofer SOP, Damen THC, Mureau MAM, Rakhorst HA, Roche NA. A critical review of perioperative complications in 175 free deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstructions. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 59 (02) 137-142
• 12 Varnava C, Wiebringhaus P, Hirsch T, Dermietzel A, Kueckelhaus M. Breast reconstruction with DIEP Flap: the learning curve at a breast reconstruction center and a single-surgeon study. J Clin Med 2023; 12 (08) 2894
• 13 Anderson BR, Wallace AS, Hill KD. et al. Association of surgeon age and experience with congenital heart surgery outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2017; 10 (07) e003533
• 14 Kelz RR, Sellers MM, Niknam BA. et al. A national comparison of operative outcomes of new and experienced surgeons. Ann Surg 2021; 273 (02) 280-288
• 15 Choe J, Aiello C, Yom J. et al. Embracing Robotics in Microsurgery: Robotic-Assisted Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2025; 41 (05) 450-458
• 16 Acosta R, Smit JM, Audolfsson T. et al. A clinical review of 9 years of free perforator flap breast reconstructions: an analysis of 675 flaps and the influence of new techniques on clinical practice. J Reconstr Microsurg 2011; 27 (02) 91-98
• 17 Tønseth KA, Hokland BM, Tindholdt TT, Åbyholm FE, Stavem K. Quality of life, patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome after breast reconstruction using DIEP flap or expandable breast implant. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008; 61 (10) 1188-1194
• 18 Lascar I, Totir D, Cinca A. et al. Training program and learning curve in experimental microsurgery during the residency in plastic surgery. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (04) 263-267
• 19 Selber JC, Chang EI, Liu J. et al. Tracking the learning curve in microsurgical skill acquisition. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (04) 550e-557e
• 20 Araya S, Webster TK, Egleston B. et al. Significant reduction in length of stay in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction with implementation of multimodal ERAS protocol. Ann Plast Surg 2023; 91 (01) 90-95
• 21 Haddock NT, Tycher JT, Teotia SS. Deliberate practice in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: an immediate and sustained decrease in morbidity and operative time. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 152 (05) 791e-800e
• 22 Reid CM, Parmeshwar N, Brandel MG, Crisera CA, Herrera FA, Suliman AS. Detailed analysis of the impact of surgeon and hospital volume in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Microsurgery 2020; 40 (06) 670-678
• 23 Atamian EK, Suydam R, Hardy TN. et al. Financial implications of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2023; 90 (6S, suppl 5): S607-S611
• 24 DelMauro MA, Chen K, Keller A. Reducing length of stay after microsurgical breast reconstruction with a standardized postoperative protocol. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (08) 557-567
• 25 Holoyda KA, Magno-Padron DA, Carter GC, Agarwal JP, Kwok AC. National trends in length of stay for microvascular breast reconstruction: an evaluation of 10,465 cases using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149 (02) 306-313
• 26 Haddock NT, Facchin F, Teotia SS. A clinical practice review on process efficiency in autologous breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2023; 12 (07) 1007-1015
• 27 Haddock NT, Teotia SS. Deconstructing the reconstruction: evaluation of process and efficiency in deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (04) 717e-724e
• 28 Laporta R, Longo B, Sorotos M, Farcomeni A, Amorosi V, Santanelli di Pompeo F. Time-dependent factors in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Microsurgery 2017; 37 (07) 793-799
• 29 Haddock NT, Garza R, Boyle CE, Teotia SS. Observations from implementation of the ERAS protocol after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (06) 506-510
• 30 Rodnoi P, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Economic impact of refinements in ERAS pathways in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (07) 524-529
• 31 Stephens KL, DeVito RG, Hollenbeck ST, Campbell CA, Stranix JT. Effect of enhanced recovery after surgery in morbidly obese patients undergoing free flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2025
• 32 Eom JS, Kobayashi MR, Paydar K, Wirth GA, Evans GRD. The number of operations required for completing breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014; 2 (10) e242
• 33 Smith JM, Boukovalas S, Chang EI. et al. Analysis of breast aesthetic revision procedures after unilateral abdominal-based free-flap breast reconstruction: a single-center experience with 1251 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023; 11 (03) e4861
• 34 Lester ME, Berns J, Dawson S, Newsom K, Hartman B, Hassanein AH. A novel framework for optimizing efficiency and education in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023; 11 (11) e5445
• 35 Galanis C, Sanchez IS, Roostaeian J, Crisera C. Factors influencing patient interest in plastic surgery and the process of selecting a surgeon. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (04) 585-590
• 36 Elmer NA, Veeramani A, Hassell N. et al. In the age of social media, how does the public choose a plastic surgeon? A crowdsourcing analysis of major deciding factors. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024; 153 (01) 194e-203e
• 37 Waltzman JT, Scholz T, Evans GR. What patients look for when choosing a plastic surgeon: an assessment of patient preference by conjoint analysis. Ann Plast Surg 2011; 66 (06) 643-647
• 38 Pierzchajlo N, Zibitt M, Hinson C. et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2023; 87: 259-272
• 39 Tanna N, Clappier M, Barnett SL. et al. Streamlining and consistency in surgery: lean six sigma to improve operating room efficiency. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 152 (03) 682-690