» Articles » PMID: 32537315

What Is in a Number? Evaluating a Risk Assessment Tool in Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Overview
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2020 Jun 16
PMID 32537315
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Methods: Patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction were prospectively identified and evaluated with an intraoperative mastectomy flap ischemia risk assessment tool consisting of 8 binary questions. Breast measurements and patient demographics were recorded. Reconstructions were then prospectively evaluated postoperatively for ischemic complications. Outcomes were analyzed with significance set at values <0.05.

Results: Thirty-one patients underwent 45 immediate breast reconstruction. The majority of reconstructions were tissue expander based (64.4%) following therapeutic (62.2%) skin-sparing (93.3%) mastectomies. Average follow-up was 11.16 months. Sixteen reconstructions (35.6%) experienced an ischemic complication. The average total mastectomy flap ischemic risk score was 4.29. The correlation value of higher scores with increasing ischemic complications was 0.65. Reconstructions with scores greater than 5 had significantly higher rates of ischemic complications ( = 0.0025). Reconstructions with a score of >6 and >7 also had significantly higher rates of ischemic complications ( < 0.0001, each). The sensitivity and specificity of intraoperative mastectomy flap compromise were 81.25% and 62.07%.

Conclusions: Ischemic complications after immediate breast reconstruction were positively correlated with higher scores using a clinical intraoperative mastectomy flap ischemia risk assessment tool. Scores greater than 5 seem to be a threshold value at which ischemic complications are significantly greater. This simple, easy-to-implement intraoperative tool may assist plastic surgeons in assessing risk and optimizing outcomes in immediate breast reconstruction.

Citing Articles

Management of complications following implant-based breast reconstruction: a narrative review.

Meshkin D, Firriolo J, Karp N, Salibian A Ann Transl Med. 2024; 11(12):416.

PMID: 38213810 PMC: 10777227. DOI: 10.21037/atm-23-1384.


Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM.

Salibian A, Bekisz J, Kussie H, Thanik V, Levine J, Choi M Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021; 9(8):e3745.

PMID: 34386310 PMC: 8354628. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003745.

References
1.
Reintgen C, Leavitt A, Pace E, Molas-Pierson J, Mast B . Risk Factor Analysis for Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis: Implications for Intraoperative Vascular Analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2016; 76 Suppl 4:S336-9. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000740. View

2.
Yoon-Flannery K, DeStefano L, De La Cruz L, Fisher C, Lin L, Coffua L . Quality of life and sexual well-being after nipple sparing mastectomy: A matched comparison of patients using the breast Q. J Surg Oncol. 2018; 118(1):238-242. DOI: 10.1002/jso.25107. View

3.
Munabi N, Olorunnipa O, Goltsman D, Rohde C, Ascherman J . The ability of intra-operative perfusion mapping with laser-assisted indocyanine green angiography to predict mastectomy flap necrosis in breast reconstruction: a prospective trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014; 67(4):449-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.040. View

4.
Mirhaidari S, Azouz V, Wagner D . Routine Laser-assisted Indocyanine Green Angiography in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Is It Worth the Cost?. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019; 7(4):e2235. PMC: 6554161. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002235. View

5.
Jeon F, Varghese J, Griffin M, Butler P, Ghosh D, Mosahebi A . Systematic review of methodologies used to assess mastectomy flap viability. BJS Open. 2018; 2(4):175-184. PMC: 6069344. DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.61. View