-
Comparative Study
Propensity-matched, longitudinal outcomes analysis of complications and cost: comparing abdominal free flaps and implant-based breast reconstruction.
- John P Fischer, Ari M Wes, Jonas A Nelson, Marten Basta, Jeffrey I Rohrbach, Liza C Wu, Joseph M Serletti, and Stephen J Kovach.
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: John.Fischer2@uphs.upenn.edu.
- J. Am. Coll. Surg.. 2014 Aug 1;219(2):303-12.
BackgroundChoosing a breast reconstructive modality after mastectomy is an important step in the reconstructive process. The authors hypothesized that autologous tissue is associated with a greater success rate and cost efficacy over time, relative to implant reconstruction.Study DesignA retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing free tissue (FF) transfer and expander implant (E/I) reconstruction between 2005 and 2011. Variables evaluated included comorbidities, surgical timing, complications, overall outcomes, unplanned reoperations, and costs. A propensity-matching technique was used to account for the nonrandomized selection of modality.ResultsA total of 310 propensity-matched patients underwent 499 reconstructions. No statistically significant differences in preoperative variables were noted between propensity-matched cohorts. Operative characteristics were similar between FF and E/I reconstructions. The E/I reconstruction was associated with a significantly higher rate of reconstructive failure (5.6% vs 1.2%, p < 0.001). Expander implant reconstructions were associated with higher rates of seroma (p = 0.009) and lower rates of medical complications (p = 0.02), but overall significantly higher rates of unplanned operations (15.5% vs 5.8%, p = 0.002). The total cost of reconstruction did not differ significantly between groups ($23,120.49 ± $6,969.56 vs $22,739.91 ± $9,727.79, p = 0.060), but E/I reconstruction was associated with higher total cost for secondary procedures ($10,157.89 ± $8,741.77 vs $3,200.71 ± $4,780.64, p < 0.0001) and a higher cost of unplanned revisions over time (p < 0.05).ConclusionsOur matched outcomes analysis does demonstrate a higher overall, 2-year success rate using FF reconstruction and a significantly lower rate of unplanned surgical revisions and cost. Although autologous reconstruction is not ideal for every patient, these findings can be used to enhance preoperative discussions when choosing a reconstructive modality.Copyright © 2014 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:

- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.