Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32(02): 147-152
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1563702
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

A 35-Year Evolution of Free Flap-Based Breast Reconstruction at a Large Urban Academic Center

Rohini Kadle
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
Joshua Cohen
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
William Hambley
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
Alejandro Gomez-Viso
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
William Rifkin
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
Robert Allen
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
Nolan Karp
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
Pierre Saadeh
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
Daniel Ceradini
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
Jamie Levine
1   New York University Langone Medical Center, Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York, New York
,
Tomer Avraham
2   Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Mount Sinai Health System and Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 April 2015

09 July 2015

Publication Date:
18 September 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum to: A 35-Year Evolution of Free Flap-Based Breast Reconstruction at a Large Urban Academic CenterJ Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32(02): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632385

Abstract

Background This study aims to characterize the evolution and trends in free flap breast reconstruction at our institution.

Methods The authors reviewed and analyzed a registry of free flap breast reconstructions performed at a large urban academic center.

Results Between 1979 and mid-2014, a total of 920 patients underwent breast reconstruction with 1,254 flaps. The mean age was 47.7 years (range, 16–79 years). Over the past 10 years, patients were older than all patients seen in the prior decade (average age 48.9 vs. 46.1 years, p = 0.002). Overall, 82% of flaps were performed at our university hospital, 17% at a major urban county hospital, and < 1% at other sites. A total of 99% patients received postmastectomy reconstruction for an existing cancer diagnosis or prophylaxis. There has been a significant increase in reconstructions, with 579 flaps performed over the past 5 years alone. There has been a fundamental shift in the predominant flap of choice over time. Perforator flaps have increased in popularity at our institution, with 74% of all reconstructions over this past 5 years being perforator based. Perforator flaps were more likely to be chosen over nonperforator flaps in older versus younger patients (p = 0.0008). There has been a steady increase in bilateral reconstructions since the first one was performed in 1987 (p = 0.002).

Conclusions Over the past 35 years, our institution has seen a significant evolution in free flap-based breast reconstruction. Besides a massive increase in flap numbers we have seen a significant trend toward bilateral reconstructions and perforator-based flaps.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - free flap - microsurgery - trends - perforator flap
 

  • References

  • 1 DeSantis C, Ma J, Bryan L, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64 (1) 52-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nano MT, Gill PG, Kollias J, Bochner MA, Malycha P, Winefield HR. Psychological impact and cosmetic outcome of surgical breast cancer strategies. ANZ J Surg 2005; 75 (11) 940-947
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Nicholson RM, Leinster S, Sassoon EM. A comparison of the cosmetic and psychological outcome of breast reconstruction, breast conserving surgery and mastectomy without reconstruction. Breast 2007; 16 (4) 396-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simple mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36 (15) 1938-1943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mullan MH, Wilkins EG, Goldfarb S , et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes after breast reconstruction: cross-cultural comparisons of 1-year postoperative results. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60 (5) 503-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Atisha D, Alderman AK, Lowery JC, Kuhn LE, Davis J, Wilkins EG. Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. Ann Surg 2008; 247 (6) 1019-1028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Uroskie TW, Colen LB. History of breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2004; 18 (2) 65-69
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Strach B, Vasconez L, Hall-Findlay E, Lee B. Grabb's Encyclopedia of Flaps. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Tanzini I. Spora il mio nuova processo di amputazione della mammella. Riforma Med 1906; 22: 757
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Losken A, Jurkiewicz MJ. History of breast reconstruction. Breast Dis 2002; 16: 3-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Teimourian B, Adham MN. Louis Ombredanne and the origin of muscle flap use for immediate breast mound reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1983; 72 (6) 905-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Roehl KR. Breast Reconstruction. Open Breast Cancer J 2010; 2: 25-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cronin T, Gerow F. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new “natural feel” prosthesis. In: Transactions of the Third International Congress of Plastic Surgery; October 13–18, 1963; Washington, DC
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Holmström H. The free abdominoplasty flap and its use in breast reconstruction. An experimental study and clinical case report. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1979; 13 (3) 423-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Granzow JW, Levine JL, Chiu ES, Allen RJ. Breast reconstruction using perforator flaps. J Surg Oncol 2006; 94 (6) 441-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Healy C, Allen Sr RJ. The evolution of perforator flap breast reconstruction: twenty years after the first DIEP flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (2) 121-125
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Massey MF, Spiegel AJ, Levine JL , et al; Group for the Advancement of Breast Reconstruction. Perforator flaps: recent experience, current trends, and future directions based on 3974 microsurgical breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (3) 737-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Granzow JW, Levine JL, Chiu ES, Allen RJ. Breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: history and an update on current technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59 (6) 571-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (1) 32-38
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB , et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (4) 1153-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nahabedian MY, Momen B, Galdino G, Manson PN. Breast Reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap: patient selection, choice of flap, and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (2) 466-475 , discussion 476–477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Grotting JC. The free abdominoplasty flap for immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1991; 27 (4) 351-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Volpe AG, Rothkopf DM, Walton RL. The versatile superficial inferior epigastric flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (2) 113-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Blondeel PN. The sensate free superior gluteal artery perforator (S-GAP) flap: a valuable alternative in autologous breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52 (3) 185-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Allen RJ. The superior gluteal artery perforator flap. Clin Plast Surg 1998; 25 (2) 293-302
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Allen R, LoTempio M, Granzow J. Inferior gluteal perforator flaps for breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2006; 20: 89-94
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Allen RJ, Haddock NT, Ahn CY, Sadeghi A. Breast reconstruction with the profunda artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (1) 16e-23e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 American Society of Plastic Surgeons . 2014 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. Available at: http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Documents/news-resources/statistics/2013-statistics/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2014.pdf . Accessed April 19, 2015
    PubMed
  • 29 Jagsi R, Jiang J, Momoh AO , et al. Trends and variation in use of breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (9) 919-926 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24550418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Pusic AL , et al. The influence of sociodemographic factors and hospital characteristics on the method of breast reconstruction, including microsurgery: a U.S. population-based study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (5) 1071-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Albornoz CR, Cordeiro PG, Mehrara BJ , et al. Economic implications of recent trends in U.S. immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (3) 463-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Alderman AK, McMahon Jr L, Wilkins EG. The national utilization of immediate and early delayed breast reconstruction and the effect of sociodemographic factors. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111 (2) 695-703 , discussion 704–705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mirzabeigi MN, Au A, Jandali S, Natoli N, Sbitany H, Serletti JM. Trials and tribulations with the inferior gluteal artery perforator flap in autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (6) 614e-624e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Fischer JP, Sieber B, Nelson JA , et al. Comprehensive outcome and cost analysis of free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction: an experience with 1303 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (2) 195-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Grotting JC, Urist MM, Maddox WA, Vasconez LO. Conventional TRAM flap versus free microsurgical TRAM flap for immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83 (5) 828-841 , discussion 842–844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nelson JA, Guo Y, Sonnad SS , et al. A Comparison between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in breast reconstruction: a single surgeon's recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (5) 1428-1435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Pien I, Caccavale S, Cheung MC , et al. Evolving trends in autologous breast reconstruction: Is the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap taking over?. Ann Plast Surg 2015; (e-pub ahead of print). doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000339
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Egeberg A, Rasmussen MK, Sørensen JA. Comparing the donor-site morbidity using DIEP, SIEA or MS-TRAM flaps for breast reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65 (11) 1474-1480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Holm C, Mayr M, Höfter E, Ninkovic M. The versatility of the SIEA flap: a clinical assessment of the vascular territory of the superficial epigastric inferior artery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60 (8) 946-951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Selber JC, Samra F, Bristol M , et al. A head-to-head comparison between the muscle-sparing free TRAM and the SIEA flaps: is the rate of flap loss worth the gain in abdominal wall function?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (2) 348-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Saint-Cyr M, Youssef A, Bae HW, Robb GL, Chang DW. Changing trends in recipient vessel selection for microvascular autologous breast reconstruction: an analysis of 1483 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (7) 1993-2000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Trabulsy PP, Anthony JP, Mathes SJ. Changing trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a 13-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 93 (7) 1418-1427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Dupin CL, Allen RJ, Glass CA, Bunch R. The internal mammary artery and vein as a recipient site for free-flap breast reconstruction: a report of 110 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98 (4) 685-689 , discussion 690–692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Santanelli Di Pompeo F, Longo B, Sorotos M, Pagnoni M, Laporta R. The axillary versus internal mammary recipient vessel sites for breast reconstruction with diep flaps: a retrospective study of 256 consecutive cases. Microsurgery 2015; 35 (1) 34-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Wallace CG, Shokrollahi K. Thoracodorsal or internal mammary recipient vessels for microvascular breast reconstruction?. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (5) 536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Nahabedian M. The internal mammary artery and vein as recipient vessels for microvascular breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (5) 537-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Banwell M, Trotter D, Ramakrishnan V. The thoracodorsal artery and vein as recipient vessels for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (5) 542-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Serletti JM, Moran SL. Microvascular reconstruction of the breast. Semin Surg Oncol 2000; 19 (3) 264-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Cemal Y, Albornoz CR, Disa JJ , et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: Part 2. The influence of changing mastectomy patterns on reconstructive rate and method. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (3) 320e-326e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Broer PN, Weichman KE, Tanna N , et al. Venous coupler size in autologous breast reconstruction—does it matter?. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (7) 514-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar