Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2737-6539
Complication Burden and Demographic Trends in Autologous Breast Reconstruction Outcomes: Insights from the NIH All of Us Program
Authors
Abstract
Background
While the risks and benefits of autologous breast reconstruction have been widely examined, nationally representative, longitudinal data on complication burden, flap utilization trends, and patient-level risk factors remain limited. The NIH All of Us Research Program provides an opportunity to address these gaps using a diverse, population-scale cohort.
Methods
We identified 260 patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction using current procedural terminology codes within the All of Us Registered Tier Dataset (1995–2025). Complications were tracked at 30 days and 1 year postoperatively. Logistic, multivariate regressions, and Kaplan–Meier analyses evaluated predictors and timing of complications. Unsupervised machine learning via k-means clustering was utilized to uncover phenotypic subgroups by age and body mass index (BMI).
Results
Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap utilization increased over time, particularly among younger patients. Complication rates did not significantly differ across flap types. BMI > 32.7 kg/m2 was associated with increased 30-day complications, while age and race were not independent predictors. Chronic pain and persistent postoperative pain were the most common 1-year complications. Flap failure occurred in fewer than 2% of cases. Clustering revealed three patient subgroups with distinct complication profiles; older patients and those with higher BMI experienced greater morbidity but maintained high flap success rates.
Conclusion
Autologous breast reconstruction is broadly effective across diverse patient populations. Complication risk is more strongly influenced by BMI than by age or race. Chronic pain emerged as a common long-term morbidity, underscoring the need for improved detection and management efforts. The diversity, depth, and follow-up available through All of Us enable nuanced insights into reconstructive outcomes not possible with traditional datasets.
Keywords
autologous breast reconstruction - DIEP flap - surgical complications - flap selection - BMI - chronic painPublication History
Received: 15 June 2025
Accepted: 03 November 2025
Accepted Manuscript online:
06 November 2025
Article published online:
02 December 2025
© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Song Y, Zeng J, Tian X, Zheng H, Wu X. A review of different breast reconstruction methods. Am J Transl Res 2023; 15 (06) 3846-3855
- 2 Toyserkani NM, Jørgensen MG, Tabatabaeifar S, Damsgaard T, Sørensen JA. Autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020; 73 (02) 278-285
- 3 Augustin A, Morandi EM, Winkelmann S. et al. Long-term results after autologous breast reconstruction with DIEP versus PAP flaps based on quality of life and aesthetic outcome analysis. J Clin Med 2023; 12 (03) 737
- 4 Kim M, Vingan P, Boe LA. et al. Satisfaction with breasts following autologous reconstruction: assessing associated factors and the impact of revisions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025; 155 (02) 235-244
- 5 Rubenstein RN, Nelson JA, Azoury SC. et al. Breast surgical oncology epidemiologic research: a guide and comparison of four national databases. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30 (04) 2069-2084
- 6 Chen AD, Kamali P, Chattha AS. et al. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 30-day challenge: microsurgical breast reconstruction outcomes reporting reliability. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (03) e1643
- 7 Bick AG, Metcalf GA, Mayo KR. et al; All of Us Research Program Genomics Investigators. Genomic data in the All of Us Research program. Nature 2024; 627 (8003) 340-346
- 8 Garcia-Vidal C, Teijón-Lumbreras C, Aiello TF. et al. K-means clustering identifies diverse clinical phenotypes in COVID-19 patients: implications for mortality risks and remdesivir impact. Infect Dis Ther 2024; 13 (04) 715-726
- 9 Cho MJ, Hallac RR, Effendi M, Seaward JR, Kane AA. Comparison of an unsupervised machine learning algorithm and surgeon diagnosis in the clinical differentiation of metopic craniosynostosis and benign metopic ridge. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 6312
- 10 Roubaud MS, Carey JN, Vartanian E, Patel KM. Breast reconstruction in the high-risk population: current review of the literature and practice guidelines. Gland Surg 2021; 10 (01) 479-486
- 11 Barnes LL, Lem M, Patterson A. et al. Relationship between body mass index and outcomes in microvascular abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024; 153 (03) 553-566
- 12 Cho MJ, Schroeder M, Flores Garcia J, Royfman A, Moreira A. The current state of the art in autologous breast reconstruction: a review and modern/future approaches. J Clin Med 2025; 14 (05) 1543
- 13 Mandelbaum AD, Thompson CK, Attai DJ. et al. National trends in immediate breast reconstruction: an analysis of implant-based versus autologous reconstruction after mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27 (12) 4777-4785
- 14 Hong SE, Kang D. Navigating the pandemic: shifts in breast reconstruction trends and surgical decision-making in the United States. J Clin Med 2024; 13 (14) 4168
- 15 Fan S, Kim S, Farrokhi K. et al. Donor site outcomes following autologous breast reconstruction with DIEP flap: a retrospective and prospective study in a single institution. Plast Surg (Oakv) 2024; 33 (04) 544-551
- 16 Brendler-Spaeth CI, Jacklin C, See JL, Roseman G, Kalu PU. Autologous breast reconstruction in older women: A retrospective single-centre analysis of complications and uptake of secondary reconstructive procedures. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020; 73 (05) 856-864
- 17 Chu CK, Largo RD, Lee ZH. et al. Introduction of the L-PAP flap: bipedicled, conjoined, and stacked thigh-based flaps for autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 152 (06) 1005e-1010e
- 18 Haddock NT, Lakatta AC, Teotia SS. Bilateral lumbar artery perforator flaps for breast reconstruction: a perforator classification system. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024; 154 (03) 413e-420e
- 19 Casey MC, Hurley AR, Chrysopoulo M, Khan AA, Power K, Nanidis T. The lumbar artery perforator free flap as an alternative option for breast reconstruction in low BMI patients: analysis of CT angiography of donor sites across BMI. J Reconstr Microsurg 2025; 41 (06) 508-514
- 20 Heidekrueger PI, Fritschen U, Moellhoff N. et al. Impact of body mass index on free DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74 (08) 1718-1724
- 21 Rothchild E, Smith IT, Popoola SO, Ricci JA, Tanna N. Surgeon experience and outcomes in microsurgical breast reconstruction: a 10-year single surgeon analysis. J Reconstr Microsurg 2025;
- 22 Masoomi H, Paydar KZ, Wirth GA, Aly A, Kobayashi MR, Evans GR. Predictive risk factors of venous thromboembolism in autologous breast reconstruction surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72 (01) 30-33
- 23 Ahmed SH, Shekouhi R, Gerhold C. et al. Contributors to post-operative venous thromboembolism risk after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2024; 94: 106-118
- 24 Castaldi M, George G, Stoller C, Parsikia A, McNelis J. Independent predictors of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing reconstructive breast cancer surgery. Plast Surg (Oakv) 2021; 29 (03) 160-168
- 25 Roth RS, Qi J, Hamill JB. et al. Is chronic postsurgical pain surgery-induced? A study of persistent postoperative pain following breast reconstruction. Breast 2018; 37: 119-125
- 26 Shiraishi M, Sowa Y, Inafuku N, Sunaga A, Yoshimura K, Okazaki M. Chronic pain following breast reconstruction: a scoping review. Ann Plast Surg 2024; 93 (02) 261-267
- 27 Blankensteijn LL, Sparenberg S, Crystal DT, Ibrahim AMS, Lee BT, Lin SJ. Racial disparities in outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery: an analysis of 51,362 patients from the ACS-NSQIP. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (08) 592-599
- 28 Plotsker EL, Graziano FD, Kim M. et al. Social determinants of health and patient-reported outcomes following autologous breast reconstruction, using insurance as a proxy. J Reconstr Microsurg 2025; 41 (01) 9-18
- 29 Kim DK, Corpuz GS, Ta CN, Weng C, Rohde CH. Applying unsupervised machine learning approaches to characterize autologous breast reconstruction patient subgroups: an NSQIP analysis of 14,274 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2024; 88: 330-339
- 30 Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2018; 153 (10) 901-908
