Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(01): 035-042
DOI: 10.1055/a-1939-5874
Original Article

Hyponatremia after Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Cohort Study Comparing Two Fluid Management Protocols

Francesca Ruccia‡   *
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, East Grinstead, United Kingdom
,
Jessica Anne Savage‡   *
2   Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Salisbury District Hospital, Salisbury, United Kingdom
,
Parviz Sorooshian
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, East Grinstead, United Kingdom
,
Matthew Lees
3   Department of Anaesthesia and Critical care, Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, East Grinstead, United Kingdom
,
Vasiliki Fesatidou
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, East Grinstead, United Kingdom
,
Giovanni Zoccali
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, East Grinstead, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Perioperative fluid management is an important component of enhanced recovery pathways for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Historically, fluid management has been liberal. Little attention has been paid to the biochemical effects of different protocols. This study aims to reduce the risk of postoperative hyponatremia by introducing a new fluid management protocol.

Methods A single-institution cohort study comparing a prospective series of patients was managed using a new “modestly restrictive” fluid postoperative fluid management protocol to a control group managed with a “liberal” fluid management protocol.

Results One-hundred thirty patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction, at a single institution during 2021, are reported. Hyponatremia is demonstrated to be a significant risk with the original liberal fluid management protocol. At the end of the first postoperative day, mean fluid balance was +2,838 mL (± 1,630 mL). Twenty-four patients of sixty-five (36%) patients had low blood sodium level, 14% classified as moderate-to-severe hyponatremia. Introducing a new, “modestly-restrictive” protocol reduced mean fluid balance on day 1 to +844 mL (±700) (p ≤ 0.0001). Incidence of hyponatremia reduced from 36 to 14% (p = 0.0005). No episodes of moderate or severe hyponatremia were detected. Fluid intake, predominantly oral water, between 8am and 8pm on the first postoperative day is identified as the main risk factor for developing hyponatremia (odds ratio [OR]: 7; p = 0.019). Modest fluid restriction, as guided by the new protocol, protects patients from low sodium level (OR: 0.25; confidence interval: 95%; 0.11–1.61; p = 0.0014).

Conclusion The original “liberal” fluid management protocol encouraged unrestricted postoperative oral intake of water. Patients were often advised to consume in excess of 5 L in the first 24 hours. This unintentionally, but frequently, was associated with moderate-to-severe hyponatremia. We present a new protocol characterized by early cessation of intravenous fluid and an oral fluid limit of 2,100 mL/day associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of hyponatremia and fluid overload.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - hyponatremia - perioperative management

* Equally contributing first authors




Publication History

Received: 11 January 2022

Accepted: 14 August 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 September 2022

Article published online:
17 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 MacNeill F, Irvine T. Breast Surgery. GIRFT Programme National Specialty Report. Published February 2021. Accessed September 22, 2022, at: www.gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Demographics R. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report 2020. Published online 2020. Accessed September 22, 2022, at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T. et al; Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group. Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med 2018; 378 (24) 2263-2274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Anker AM, Prantl L, Strauss C. et al. Vasopressor support vs. liberal fluid administration in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap breast reconstruction - a randomized controlled trial. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2018; 69 (1-2): 37-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Anker AM, Prantl L, Strauss C. et al. Assessment of DIEP flap perfusion with intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence imaging in vasopressor-dominated hemodynamic support versus liberal fluid administration: a randomized controlled trial with breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27 (02) 399-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Polanco TO, Shamsunder MG, Hicks MEV. et al. Goal-directed fluid therapy in autologous breast reconstruction results in less fluid and more vasopressor administration without outcome compromise. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74 (09) 2227-2236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Persing S, Manahan M, Rosson G. Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways in breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2020; 47 (02) 221-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Temple-Oberle C, Webb C. ERAS for breast reconstruction. In: Ljungqvist O, Francis NK, Urman RD. eds. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery. Springer International Publishing; 2020: 433-442 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-33443-7_45
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chen C, Nguyen MD, Bar-Meir E. et al. Effects of vasopressor administration on the outcomes of microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 65 (01) 28-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Soteropulos CE, Tang SYQ, Poore SO. Enhanced recovery after surgery in breast reconstruction: a systematic review. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (09) 695-704
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rodnoi P, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Economic impact of refinements in ERAS pathways in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 38 (07) 524-529
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Masri G. BMJ Best Practice, Assessment of hyponatraemia. Published online March 30, 2021. Accessed September 22, 2022, at: https://bestpractice.bmj.com
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Christopoulos G, Berner JE, Sergentanis TN, Blackburn A, Mackey SP. The use of bi-pedicled DIEP flap for unilateral breast reconstruction: a 5-year retrospective study. Eur J Plast Surg 2020; DOI: 10.1007/s00238-020-01742-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Savage JA, Zhao J, Mackey S, Blackburn AV. TUG flap breast reconstruction; a 5-year consecutive case series of patient reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009362.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moller L, Berner JE, Dheansa B. The reconstructive journey: Description of the breast reconstruction pathway in a high-volume UK-based microsurgical centre. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019; 72 (12) 1930-1935
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009; 41 (04) 1149-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Desborough JP. The stress response to trauma and surgery. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85 (01) 109-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Anolik RA, Sharif-Askary B, Hompe E, Hopkins TJ, Broadwater G, Hollenbeck ST. Occurrence of symptomatic hypotension in patients undergoing breast free flaps: is enhanced recovery after surgery to blame?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (03) 606-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Batdorf NJ, Lemaine V, Lovely JK. et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery in microvascular breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (03) 395-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sebai ME, Siotos C, Payne RM. et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for microsurgical breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (03) 655-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bonde C, Khorasani H, Eriksen K, Wolthers M, Kehlet H, Elberg J. Introducing the fast track surgery principles can reduce length of stay after autologous breast reconstruction using free flaps: a case control study. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2015; 49 (06) 367-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Zhong T, Neinstein R, Massey C. et al. Intravenous fluid infusion rate in microsurgical breast reconstruction: important lessons learned from 354 free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (06) 1153-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Patel RS, McCluskey SA, Goldstein DP. et al. Clinicopathologic and therapeutic risk factors for perioperative complications and prolonged hospital stay in free flap reconstruction of the head and neck. Head Neck 2010; 32 (10) 1345-1353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Booi DI. Perioperative fluid overload increases anastomosis thrombosis in the free TRAM flap used for breast reconstruction. Eur J Plast Surg 2011; 34 (02) 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nelson JA, Fischer JP, Grover R. et al. Intraoperative vasopressors and thrombotic complications in free flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2017; 51 (05) 336-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Astanehe A, Temple-Oberle C, Nielsen M. et al. An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for microvascular breast reconstruction is safe and effective. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (01) e1634 DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001634.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar