Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Oncoplastic Surgery with Volume Replacement versus Mastectomy with Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Early Postoperative Complications in Patients with Breast Cancer

  • ,
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School
    ,
  • University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
    ,
  • Tufts Medical Center
    ,
  • Universidad Científica del Sur
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 674-683 (10 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery (Volume 41, Issue 8)

Publication milestones

  • Accepted/In press - 2024
  • Published - 01/10/2025

Publication status

Published - 01/10/2025

ISSN

0743-684X

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85212820289
  • PubMed: 39608763

Abstract

Background Two common surgical approaches for breast cancer are breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy with implant-based breast reconstruction (MIBR). However, for large tumors, an alternative to MIBR is oncoplastic surgery with volume replacement (OPSVR). We performed a comprehensive analysis comparing OPSVR with MIBR, with our aim to focus on the 30-day postoperative complications between these two techniques. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2020. Only breast cancer patients were included and were divided according to the surgical technique: OPSVR and MIBR. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent risk factors for total, surgical, and wound complications. Results A cohort of 8,403 breast cancer patients was analyzed. A total of 683 underwent OPSVR and 7,720 underwent MIBR. From 2005 to 2020, the adoption of OPSVR gradually increased over the years (p < 0.001), whereas MIBR decreased. OPSVR patients were older (57.04 vs. 51.89 years, p < 0.001), exhibited a higher body mass index (31.73 vs. 26.93, p < 0.001), had a greater prevalence of diabetes mellitus (11.0 vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). They also had a higher ASA classification (2.33 vs. 2.15, p < 0.001), shorter operative time (173.39 vs. 216.20 minutes, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of outpatient procedures (83.7 vs. 39.5%, p < 0.001). Outcome analysis demonstrated fewer total complications in the OPSVR patients (4.2 vs. 10.9%, p < 0.001), including lower rates of surgical complications (2.2 vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001) and wound complications (1.9 vs. 4.8%, p ¼ 0.005) compared with MIBR patients. Multivariate analysis identified OPSVR as an independent protective factor for total, surgical, and wound complications. Conclusion OPSVR has become a favorable technique for patients with breast cancer. Even in patients with higher comorbidities, OPSVR demonstrates safe and better outcomes when compared with MIBR. It should be considered a reasonable and safe breast surgical option in the appropriate patient.

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
Citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
3
Citations
2

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well