“Microsurgical breast reconstruction - A salvage option for failed implant-based breast reconstruction”

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Amir Khosrow Bigdeli , Jia Wei Tee , Felix Hubertus Vollbach , Yannick Fabian Diehm , Florian Falkner , Felix Strübing , Maximilian Mahrhofer , Emre Gazyakan , Ulrich Kneser , Laura Cosima Siegwart
{"title":"“Microsurgical breast reconstruction - A salvage option for failed implant-based breast reconstruction”","authors":"Amir Khosrow Bigdeli ,&nbsp;Jia Wei Tee ,&nbsp;Felix Hubertus Vollbach ,&nbsp;Yannick Fabian Diehm ,&nbsp;Florian Falkner ,&nbsp;Felix Strübing ,&nbsp;Maximilian Mahrhofer ,&nbsp;Emre Gazyakan ,&nbsp;Ulrich Kneser ,&nbsp;Laura Cosima Siegwart","doi":"10.1016/j.breast.2025.104480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The objective of this study was to evaluate microsurgical breast reconstruction as a salvage option for patients with failed implant-based breast reconstruction.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a retrospective single-center study including all patients with failed unilateral implant-based breast reconstruction who elected to undergo conversion surgery to microsurgical breast reconstruction from January 2015 to December 2023. Patients were grouped according to the urgency for conversion surgery in the urgent (implant infection or extrusion) or elective (capsular contracture, patients’ desire) group. Both groups were compared.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>120 patients were included in the study. 101 patients (84 %) were grouped in the elective group and 19 patients (16 %) in the urgent group. Patient characteristics and intraoperative variables including the utilization of DIEP/MS-TRAM and TMG flap for microsurgical reconstruction were similar in group comparison. Patients in the urgent group had significantly more surgical interventions (3.3 vs. 2.0, p &lt; 0.001) and suffered from significantly more major complications requiring re-operation (32 % vs. 11 %, p = 0.018) compared to the elective group. There was one flap loss in the urgent group (5 % vs. 0 %, p = 0.158).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Microsurgical breast reconstruction is a reliable and safe salvage option in patients with failure of implant-based breast reconstruction. Urgent conversion to microsurgical breast reconstruction due to implant-associated complications, such as infection or extrusion, requires more surgical interventions to achieve successful breast reconstruction and has a higher rate of major complications compared to elective conversion.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9093,"journal":{"name":"Breast","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 104480"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977625004977","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate microsurgical breast reconstruction as a salvage option for patients with failed implant-based breast reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective single-center study including all patients with failed unilateral implant-based breast reconstruction who elected to undergo conversion surgery to microsurgical breast reconstruction from January 2015 to December 2023. Patients were grouped according to the urgency for conversion surgery in the urgent (implant infection or extrusion) or elective (capsular contracture, patients’ desire) group. Both groups were compared.

Results

120 patients were included in the study. 101 patients (84 %) were grouped in the elective group and 19 patients (16 %) in the urgent group. Patient characteristics and intraoperative variables including the utilization of DIEP/MS-TRAM and TMG flap for microsurgical reconstruction were similar in group comparison. Patients in the urgent group had significantly more surgical interventions (3.3 vs. 2.0, p < 0.001) and suffered from significantly more major complications requiring re-operation (32 % vs. 11 %, p = 0.018) compared to the elective group. There was one flap loss in the urgent group (5 % vs. 0 %, p = 0.158).

Conclusion

Microsurgical breast reconstruction is a reliable and safe salvage option in patients with failure of implant-based breast reconstruction. Urgent conversion to microsurgical breast reconstruction due to implant-associated complications, such as infection or extrusion, requires more surgical interventions to achieve successful breast reconstruction and has a higher rate of major complications compared to elective conversion.
显微外科乳房再造术——对失败的假体乳房再造术的补救选择
本研究的目的是评估显微外科乳房重建术作为植入式乳房重建术失败患者的补救选择。方法对2015年1月至2023年12月所有单侧假体乳房再造术失败并选择转显微外科乳房再造术的患者进行回顾性单中心研究。根据转位手术的紧迫性分为紧急组(种植体感染或挤压)和择期组(荚膜挛缩、患者意愿)。两组进行比较。结果120例患者纳入研究。101例患者(84%)分为择期组,19例患者(16%)分为急症组。患者特征和术中变量包括DIEP/MS-TRAM和TMG皮瓣显微外科重建在组间比较相似。急诊组患者的手术干预次数明显多于急诊组(3.3 vs. 2.0, p <;0.001),与择期组相比,有更多的主要并发症需要再次手术(32%比11%,p = 0.018)。紧急组有1例皮瓣丢失(5% vs. 0%, p = 0.158)。结论显微外科乳房再造术是假体乳房再造术失败的一种可靠、安全的挽救方法。由于植入物相关的并发症,如感染或挤压,紧急转换为显微外科乳房重建,需要更多的手术干预才能实现成功的乳房重建,并且与选择性转换相比,主要并发症的发生率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Breast
Breast 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Breast is an international, multidisciplinary journal for researchers and clinicians, which focuses on translational and clinical research for the advancement of breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all stages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信