Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38(01): 034-040
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727201
Original Article

Do Patient Expectations of Discharge Affect Length of Stay after Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap for Breast Reconstruction?

Ravinder Bamba
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Jordan E. Wiebe
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Christopher A. Ingersol
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Steven Dawson
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Mithun Sinha
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Adam C. Cohen
2   Department of Surgery, Community Health Network, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Brett C. Hartman
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Mary E. Lester
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Aladdin H. Hassanein
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is a common method of breast reconstruction. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) postoperative protocols have been used to optimize patient outcomes and facilitate shorter hospital stays. The effect of patient expectations on length of stay (LOS) after DIEP has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether patient expectations affect LOS.

Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for patients undergoing DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2020. All patients were managed with the same ERAS protocol. Patients were divided in Group I (early expectations) and Group II (standard expectations). Group I patients had expectations set for discharge postoperative day (POD) 2 for unilateral DIEP and POD 3 for bilateral DIEP. Group II patients were given expectations for POD 3 to 4 for unilateral DIEP and POD 4 to 5 for bilateral. The primary outcome variable was LOS.

Results The study included 215 DIEP flaps (45 unilateral and 85 bilateral). The average age was 49.8 years old, and the average body mass index (BMI) was 31.4. Group I (early expectations) included 56 patients (24 unilateral DIEPs, 32 bilateral). Group II (standard expectations) had 74 patients (21 unilateral, 53 bilateral). LOS for unilateral DIEP was 2.9 days for Group I compared with 3.7 days for Group II (p = 0.004). Group I bilateral DIEP patients had LOS of 3.5 days compared with 3.9 days for Group II (p = 0.02). Immediate timing of DIEP (Group I 42.9 vs. Group II 52.7%) and BMI (Group I 32.1 vs. Group II 30.8) were similar (p = 0.25).

Conclusion Our study found significantly shorter hospital stay after DIEP flap for patients who expected an earlier discharge date despite similar patient characteristics and uniform ERAS protocol. Patient expectations should be considered during patient counseling and as a confounding variable when analyzing ERAS protocols.

Keywords

ERAS protocol - deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps - DIEP - postoperative length of stay - LOS - discharge expectations


Publication History

Received: 08 November 2020

Accepted: 15 February 2021

Article published online:
14 April 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Surgeons ASoP. 2019 Plastic surgery statistics report. Accessed March 9, 2021 at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2019/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2019.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (01) 32-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Garvey PB, Buchel EW, Pockaj BA. et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (06) 1711-1719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pittelkow EM, DeBrock WC, McLaughlin BE. et al. Preoperatively identified sarcopenia leads to increased postoperative complications, hospital and ICU length of stay in autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (01) 59-63
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Spera LJ, Cook JA, Dolejs S, Fisher C, Lester ME, Hassanein AH. Perioperative use of antiestrogen therapies in breast reconstruction: a systematic review and treatment recommendations. Ann Plast Surg 2020; 85 (04) 448-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wu GJ, Loewenstein SN, Mailey BA, Sasor S, Cook J, Hassanein AH. Unique complications of venous anastomotic couplers: a systematic review of the literature. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (06) 403-411
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Martinez CA, Reis SM, Rednam R, Boutros SG. The outpatient DIEP: safety and viability following a modified recovery protocol. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (09) e1898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dean NR, Crittenden T. A five year experience of measuring clinical effectiveness in a breast reconstruction service using the BREAST-Q patient reported outcomes measure: a cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (11) 1469-1477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jeevan R, Browne JP, Gulliver-Clarke C. et al. Surgical determinants of patient-reported outcomes following postmastectomy reconstruction in women with breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (05) 1036e-1045e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Liu C, Zhuang Y, Momeni A. et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after microsurgical abdominal flap versus staged expander/implant breast reconstruction: a critical study of unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using patient-reported outcomes instrument BREAST-Q. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 146 (01) 117-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mohan AT, Rammos CK, Gaba P. et al. Modified aesthetic abdominoplasty approach in perforator free-flap breast reconstruction: impact of drain free donor site on patient outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (06) 800-809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
  • 14 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fadavi D, Haley A, Khavanin N. et al. Postoperative free flap breast protocol optimizing resources and patient safety. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (05) 379-385
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Persing S, Manahan M, Rosson G. Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways in breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2020; 47 (02) 221-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sharif-Askary B, Hompe E, Broadwater G, Anolik R, Hollenbeck ST. The effect of enhanced recovery after surgery pathway implementation on abdominal-based microvascular breast reconstruction. J Surg Res 2019; 242: 276-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Frey JD, Salibian AA, Karp NS, Choi M. Examining length of hospital stay after microsurgical breast reconstruction: evaluation in a case-control study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (12) e1588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ha AY, Keane G, Parikh R. et al. The analgesic effects of liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine hydrochloride administered as a transversus abdominis plane block after abdominally based autologous microvascular breast reconstruction: a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (01) 35-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tanzer D, Smith K, Tanzer M. Changing patient expectations decreases length of stay in an enhanced recovery program for THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476 (02) 372-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Halawi MJ, Vovos TJ, Green CL, Wellman SS, Attarian DE, Bolognesi MP. Patient expectation is the most important predictor of discharge destination after primary total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (04) 539-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gonzalez Sáenz de Tejada M, Escobar A, Herrera C, García L, Aizpuru F, Sarasqueta C. Patient expectations and health-related quality of life outcomes following total joint replacement. Value Health 2010; 13 (04) 447-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Henn III RF, Kang L, Tashjian RZ, Green A. Patients' preoperative expectations predict the outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (09) 1913-1919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Oh JH, Yoon JP, Kim JY, Kim SH. Effect of expectations and concerns in rotator cuff disorders and correlations with preoperative patient characteristics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21 (06) 715-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Snell L. et al. Measuring and managing patient expectations for breast reconstruction: impact on quality of life and patient satisfaction. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2012; 12 (02) 149-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kelley KE, Fajardo AD, Strange NM. et al. Impact of a novel preoperative patient-centered surgical wellness program. Ann Surg 2018; 268 (04) 650-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tran PCDW, DeBrock W, Lester ME, Hartman BC, Socas J, Hassanein AH. The false positive rate of transcutaneous tissue oximetry alarms in microvascular breast reconstruction rises after 24 hours. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (05) 453-557
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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
  • 30 Carruthers KH, Tiwari P, Yoshida S, Kocak E. Inpatient flap monitoring after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction: how long is long enough?. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (09) 682-687
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ricci JA, Vargas CR, Ho OA, Lin SJ, Tobias AM, Lee BT. Evaluating the use of tissue oximetry to decrease intensive unit monitoring for free flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2017; 79 (01) 42-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cheng MH, Lin JY, Ulusal BG, Wei FC. Comparisons of resource costs and success rates between immediate and delayed breast reconstruction using DIEP or SIEA flaps under a well-controlled clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (07) 2139-2142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 O'Connell RL, Di Micco R, Khabra K. et al. Comparison of immediate versus delayed DIEP flap reconstruction in women who require postmastectomy radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (03) 594-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar