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
. 2017 Oct 10;5(10):e1514.
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001514. eCollection 2017 Oct.

Outcomes Comparison for Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction in Specialty Surgery Hospitals Versus Tertiary Care Facilities

Rahul Vemula  1 , Matthew J Bartow  1 , Matt Freeman  1 , Cameron Callaghan  1 , Tim Matatov  1 , David Jansen  1 , Bob Allen  1 , Hugo St Hilaire  1 , Oren Tessler  1
Affiliations

Outcomes Comparison for Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction in Specialty Surgery Hospitals Versus Tertiary Care Facilities

Rahul Vemula et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. .

Abstract

Background: Postoperative monitoring is crucial in the care of free flap breast reconstruction patients. Tertiary care facilities (TCFs) provide postoperative monitoring in an ICU after surgery. Specialty surgery hospitals (SSHs) do not have ICUs, but these facilities perform free flap breast reconstruction as well. Are outcomes comparable between the 2 facilities in terms of flap reexploration times and overall success?

Methods: Retrospective study including 163 SSH and 157 TCF patients. Primary predictor was facility in which the procedure was performed. Secondary predictors included operative, demographic, and comorbidity data. Primary outcomes were flap take back rate and flap failures. Secondary outcomes were total time from adverse event noticed in the flap to returning to the operating room (OR) and total time from decision made to return to the OR to returning to the OR (decision made). Tertiary outcomes were length of stay, operative times, and blood loss.

Results: Patients at the TCF were generally less healthy than SSH patients. Salvage rates and failure rates were similar between the 2 institutions. Adverse event noticed and decision made times did not differ between the 2 facilities. Overall flap success rate was 98.22% at SSH and 98.81% at TCF. No primary or secondary predictors had a significant correlation with increased odds for flap failure.

Conclusion: SSHs can offer similar outcomes in free flap breast reconstruction with just as effective clinical response times to endangered flaps as found in a TCF. However, surgery at an SSH may best be reserved for healthier patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Fujino T, Harashina T, Enomoto K. Primary breast reconstruction after a standard radical mastectomy by a free flap transfer. Case report. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1976;58:371–374.. - PubMed
    1. Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;32:32–38.. - PubMed
    1. Healy C, Allen RJ., Sr. The evolution of perforator flap breast reconstruction: twenty years after the first DIEP flap. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2014;30:121–125.. - PubMed
    1. Chen KT, Mardini S, Chuang DC, et al. Timing of presentation of the first signs of vascular compromise dictates the salvage outcome of free flap transfers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:187–195.. - PubMed
    1. Kroll SS, Schusterman MA, Reece GP, et al. Timing of pedicle thrombosis and flap loss after free-tissue transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98:1230–1233.. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources