» Articles » PMID: 26090295

Individualized Risk of Surgical Complications: An Application of the Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment Score

Overview
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2015 Jun 20
PMID 26090295
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Risk discussion is a central tenet of the dialogue between surgeon and patient. Risk calculators have recently offered a new way to integrate evidence-based practice into the discussion of individualized patient risk and expectation management. Focusing on the comprehensive Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons (TOPS) database, we endeavored to add plastic surgical outcomes to the previously developed Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment (BRA) score.

Methods: The TOPS database from 2008 to 2011 was queried for patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Regression models were constructed for the following complications: seroma, dehiscence, surgical site infection (SSI), explantation, flap failure, reoperation, and overall complications.

Results: Of 11,992 cases, 4439 met inclusion criteria. Overall complication rate was 15.9%, with rates of 3.4% for seroma, 4.0% for SSI, 6.1% for dehiscence, 3.7% for explantation, 7.0% for flap loss, and 6.4% for reoperation. Individualized risk models were developed with acceptable goodness of fit, accuracy, and internal validity. Distribution of overall complication risk was broad and asymmetric, meaning that the average risk was often a poor estimate of the risk for any given patient. These models were added to the previously developed open-access version of the risk calculator, available at http://www.BRAscore.org.

Conclusions: Population-based measures of risk may not accurately reflect risk for many individual patients. In this era of increasing emphasis on evidence-based medicine, we have developed a breast reconstruction risk assessment calculator from the robust TOPS database. The BRA Score tool can aid in individualizing-and quantifying-risk to better inform surgical decision making and better manage patient expectations.

Citing Articles

Module Creation Within the TOPS Registry: An Opportunity for Longitudinal Collection of Procedure-specific Clinical Outcomes.

Hallman T, Qureshi U, Reisner K, Figueroa A, Gosain A Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024; 12(12):e6397.

PMID: 39703384 PMC: 11658761. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006397.


Autologous coverage for direct-to-implant pre-pectoral reconstruction in large and ptotic breasts: a new technique.

Rubino C, Trignano E, Rodio M, Fancellu A, Pili N, Nonnis R Case Reports Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2024; 11(1):2383677.

PMID: 39099640 PMC: 11295681. DOI: 10.1080/23320885.2024.2383677.


Assessing the Content and Effect of Web-Based Decision Aids for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Yu L, Gong J, Sun X, Zang M, Liu L, Yu S J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e53872.

PMID: 38801766 PMC: 11165285. DOI: 10.2196/53872.


Point-of-Care Tissue Oxygenation Assessment with SnapshotNIR for Alloplastic and Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

Moritz W, Daines J, Christensen J, Myckatyn T, Sacks J, Westman A Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023; 11(7):e5113.

PMID: 37441113 PMC: 10335826. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005113.


Prophylactic Antibiotics for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison between Three Different Duration Approaches.

Changchien C, Fang C, Tsai C, Hsu C, Yang H, Chen M Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023; 11(2):e4833.

PMID: 36845865 PMC: 9946379. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004833.


References
1.
Wilkins E, Cederna P, Lowery J, Davis J, Kim H, Roth R . Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 106(5):1014-25; discussion 1026-7. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200010000-00010. View

2.
Paige K, Bostwick 3rd J, Bried J, Jones G . A comparison of morbidity from bilateral, unipedicled and unilateral, unipedicled TRAM flap breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 101(7):1819-27. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199806000-00007. View

3.
Gart M, Smetona J, Hanwright P, Fine N, Bethke K, Khan S . Autologous options for postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparison of outcomes based on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2012; 216(2):229-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.11.003. View

4.
Kim J, Mlodinow A, Khavanin N, Hume K, Simmons C, Weiss M . Individualized Risk of Surgical Complications: An Application of the Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment Score. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015; 3(5):e405. PMC: 4457268. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000351. View

5.
Kim J, Davila A, Persing S, Connor C, Jovanovic B, Khan S . A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 129(1):28-41. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182361fd6. View