Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 May-Jun;21(3):233-40.
doi: 10.1111/tbj.12395. Epub 2015 Mar 15.

The Effect of Radiation on Complication Rates and Patient Satisfaction in Breast Reconstruction using Temporary Tissue Expanders and Permanent Implants

Christopher J Anker  1 , Richard V Hymas, Ravinder Ahluwalia, Kristine E Kokeny, Vilija Avizonis, Kenneth M Boucher, Leigh A Neumayer, Jayant P Agarwal
Affiliations

The Effect of Radiation on Complication Rates and Patient Satisfaction in Breast Reconstruction using Temporary Tissue Expanders and Permanent Implants

Christopher J Anker et al. Breast J. 2015 May-Jun.

Abstract

The optimal method of reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) is controversial. This study evaluated patient satisfaction and complication rates among patients who received implant-based breast reconstruction. The specific treatment algorithm analyzed included patients receiving mastectomy and immediate temporary tissue expander (TE), followed by placement of a permanent breast implant (PI). If indicated, RT was delivered to the fully expanded TE. Records of 218 consecutive patients with 222 invasive (85%) or in situ (15%) breast lesions from the Salt Lake City region treated between 1998 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed, 28% of whom received RT. Median RT dose was 50.4 Gy, and 41% received a scar boost at a median dose of 10 Gy. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to evaluate the cumulative incidence of surgical complications, including permanent PI removal. Risk factors associated with surgical events were analyzed. To evaluate cosmetic results and patient satisfaction, an anonymous survey was administered. Mean follow-up was 44 months (range 6-144). Actuarial 5-year PI removal rates for non-RT and RT patients were 4% and 22%, respectively. On multivariate analysis (MVA), the only factor associated with PI removal was RT (p = 0.009). Surveys were returned describing the outcomes of 149 breasts. For the non-RT and RT groups, those who rated their breast appearance as good or better were 63% versus 62%, respectively. Under 1/3 of each group was dissatisfied with their reconstruction. RT did not significantly affect patient satisfaction scores, but on MVA RT was the only factor associated with increased PI removal. This reconstruction technique may be considered an acceptable option even if RT is needed, but the increased complication risk with RT must be recognized.

Keywords: breast reconstruction; complications; patient satisfaction; radiation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest / Disclosures:

No additional disclosures or conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure
Figure
Cumulative incidence of complications related to: (1a) PI Removal (Permanent implant explantation without replacement) (2b) PI Replacement (Permanent implant removal and immediate replacement with another implant) (3c) Non-PIRR (Surgical complications not including permanent implant removal or replacement) Legend: TE = tissue expander
Figure
Figure
Cumulative incidence of complications related to: (1a) PI Removal (Permanent implant explantation without replacement) (2b) PI Replacement (Permanent implant removal and immediate replacement with another implant) (3c) Non-PIRR (Surgical complications not including permanent implant removal or replacement) Legend: TE = tissue expander
Figure
Figure
Cumulative incidence of complications related to: (1a) PI Removal (Permanent implant explantation without replacement) (2b) PI Replacement (Permanent implant removal and immediate replacement with another implant) (3c) Non-PIRR (Surgical complications not including permanent implant removal or replacement) Legend: TE = tissue expander
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Motwani SB, Strom EA, Schechter NR, et al. The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the technical delivery of postmastectomy radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:76–82. - PubMed
    1. Ohri N, Cordeiro PG, Keam J, et al. Quantifying the impact of immediate reconstruction in postmastectomy radiation: a large, dose-volume histogram-based analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84:e153–159. - PubMed
    1. Chung E, Marsh RB, Griffith KA, et al. Quantifying dose to the reconstructed breast: can we adequately treat? Med Dosim. 2013;38:55–59. - PubMed
    1. Hazard L, Miercort C, Gaffney D, et al. Local-regional radiation therapy after breast reconstruction: what is the appropriate target volume? A case-control study of patients treated with electron arc radiotherapy and review of the literature. Am J Clin Oncol. 2004;27:555–564. - PubMed
    1. Ho A, Cordeiro P, Disa J, et al. Long-term outcomes in breast cancer patients undergoing immediate 2-stage expander/implant reconstruction and postmastectomy radiation. Cancer. 2012;118:2552–2559. - PubMed

Publication types