Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: One-year outcomes of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium (MROC) Study Journal Article


Authors: Wilkins, E. G.; Hamill, J. B.; Kim, H. M.; Kim, J. Y.; Greco, R. J.; Qi, J.; Pusic, A. L.
Article Title: Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: One-year outcomes of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium (MROC) Study
Abstract: Objective: In postmastectomy reconstruction, procedure choice is heavily influenced by the relative risks of the various options. This study sought to evaluate complications in a large, multicenter patient population. Summary of Background Data: Previous studies have reported widely varying complication rates, but have been limited by their single center designs and inadequate controlling for confounders in their analyses. Methods: Eleven sites enrolled women undergoing first time, immediate, or delayed reconstruction following mastectomy for cancer treatment or prophylaxis. Procedures included expander/implant, latissimus dorsi (LD), pedicle transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (PTRAM), free TRAM (FTRAM), and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) techniques. Data were gathered pre- A nd postoperatively from medical records. Separate logistic regressions were conducted for all complications and major complications (those requiring rehospitalization and/or reoperation) within 1 year. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for procedure type, controlling for site, demographic, and clinical variables. Results: Complication rates for 2234 patients were analyzed. Compared with expander/implant reconstructions, LD (OR) 1.95, P = 0.026), PTRAM (OR 1.89, P = 0.025), FTRAM (OR 1.94, P = 0.011), and DIEP (OR 2.22, P < 0.001) procedures were associated with higher risks of complications. Significantly higher risks were also associated with older age, higher body mass index (BMI), immediate reconstruction, bilateral procedures, and radiation. For major complications, regression showed significantly greater risks for PTRAM (OR 1.86, P = 0.044) and DIEP (OR 1.75, P = 0.004), than expander/implant reconstructions. Failure rates were relatively low, ranging from 0% for PTRAM to 5.9% for expander/implant reconstructions. Conclusion: In this multicenter analysis, procedure choice and other patient variables were significant predictors of 1-year complications in breast reconstruction. These findings should be considered in counseling patients on reconstructive options. © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Keywords: adult; human tissue; aged; middle aged; surgical technique; survival rate; treatment failure; major clinical study; clinical trial; cancer localization; donor site; united states; cancer radiotherapy; follow up; follow-up studies; prospective study; prospective studies; cancer prevention; breast cancer; mastectomy; nuclear protein; incidence; odds ratio; smoking; breast neoplasms; breast reconstruction; mammaplasty; graft necrosis; medical record review; cancer therapy; time factors; age; nuclear proteins; postoperative complication; postoperative complications; body mass; graft failure; multicenter study; thrombosis; breast tumor; complications; high risk population; embolism; deep inferior epigastric perforator flap; transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap; hematoma; seroma; logistic regression analysis; wound infection; outcomes; wound dehiscence; lymph node biopsy; trends; multicenter; abdominal wall hernia; clinical outcome; fat necrosis; time factor; latissimus dorsi muscle; arabidopsis proteins; arabidopsis protein; implant capsular contracture; time to treatment; charlson comorbidity index; emergency surgery; humans; human; female; priority journal; article; breast implant rupture; application site necrosis; tic protein, arabidopsis
Journal Title: Annals of Surgery
Volume: 267
Issue: 1
ISSN: 0003-4932
Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins  
Date Published: 2018-01-01
Start Page: 164
End Page: 170
Language: English
DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000002033
PUBMED: 27906762
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC5904787
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 6 February 2018 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Andrea Pusic
    300 Pusic