Clinical Therapeutics
Breast Reconstruction after Surgery for Breast Cancer
N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1590-1601October 9, 2008
- Article
This Journal feature begins with a case vignette that includes a therapeutic recommendation. A discussion of the clinical problem and the mechanism of benefit of this form of therapy follows. Major clinical studies, the clinical use of this therapy, and potential adverse effects are reviewed. Relevant formal guidelines, if they exist, are presented. The article ends with the author's clinical recommendations.
A 45-year-old woman undergoes core needle biopsy of a breast mass 4 cm in diameter and fine-needle aspiration of a palpable axillary lymph node, the results of both of which are found to be consistent with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. After discussion with her surgical oncologist, the patient elects to undergo right breast mastectomy and an axillary lymph-node dissection, expressing her disinterest in breast-conserving therapy. She is referred to a plastic surgeon for consideration of postmastectomy breast reconstruction and is noted to have a B-cup breast with minimal ptosis and a flat abdomen.
The Clinical Problem
Approximately 178,500 women in the United States will receive a diagnosis of breast cancer this year, of whom about two thirds will elect to undergo breast-conservation treatment and one third will elect to undergo mastectomy.1-3 Survey studies make clear that an important factor in the choice of mastectomy is fear of recurrence, whereas a major determinant of the choice of breast conservation is concern about the cosmetic result.4-6 For those women who choose mastectomy as part of their approach to breast-cancer therapy or prevention, reconstruction may be offered as an option by the oncologic and plastic surgeons. The goal of reconstruction is to restore a breast mound and to maintain the quality of life without affecting the prognosis or detection of recurrence of cancer.7-11 Approximately 56,000 women in the United States underwent breast reconstruction during the past year, which is a doubling from just over a decade ago.12,13 A large proportion of these women (70%) elected to undergo implant-based breast reconstruction, with the rest undergoing some form of autogenous tissue–based reconstruction.
Pathophysiology and Effect of Therapy
Mastectomy is a relatively straightforward surgical procedure that usually results in a hospital stay of 1 to 2 days. The functional deficits that occur as a consequence of mastectomy include the inability to breast-feed and loss of sensation of the skin of the chest. Loss of the breast mound alters the patient's personal appearance and can make wearing some types of clothing problematic. The use of an external prosthesis to address these issues can be inconvenient and uncomfortable, particularly for a woman with large breasts. However, the most important consequence of mastectomy is the psychosocial effect of the physical and aesthetic deformity, which can include anxiety, depression, and negative effects on body image and on sexual function. 14,15 Studies suggest that breast reconstruction restores body image; improves vitality, femininity, and sexuality; and positively affects the patient's sense of well-being and quality of life.7,16,17
Clinical Evidence
Randomized trials comparing mastectomy with breast reconstruction and mastectomy without breast reconstruction have not been performed and are unlikely to be performed, since it would be difficult to justify requiring that patients accept a random assignment to undergo elective surgery. Therefore, data supporting the benefits of breast reconstruction have been derived from cohort studies, which have often compared early or “immediate” breast reconstruction and delayed reconstruction, mastectomy alone, or breast-conserving surgery. The limitations of such studies are that patients who elect to undergo reconstructive surgery differ significantly from those who do not. For example, one retrospective cohort study of 1957 patients found that women who had undergone reconstruction were more likely to be younger and to have a partner, and to be college-educated, affluent, and white, than those undergoing either mastectomy alone or lumpectomy.14 Another analysis found that women seeking early breast reconstruction showed higher rates of psychosocial impairment and functional disability than those undergoing delayed reconstruction.18
One retrospective cohort study evaluated 577 patients who had had either wide local excision (254 patients), simple mastectomy (202), or breast reconstruction (121).19 The three groups had significantly different rates of satisfaction with the cosmetic result (91%, 73%, and 80%, respectively), perception of decreased sexual attractiveness (18%, 68%, and 25%), anxiety (38%, 69%, and 55%), and depression (7%, 10%, and 2%). Other analyses, however, including one smaller prospective study, have not found such differences.14,20,21 The entirety of the evidence strongly suggests that the benefits of breast reconstruction are dependent on the individual circumstances and preferences of patients.
Clinical Use
The decision to choose or decline breast reconstruction should be made by the patient after she has had the opportunity to learn about, discuss, and consider the possible options. Contributions from all of the patient's care providers, including the oncologic surgeon, medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, and plastic surgeon, may be useful in arriving at an appropriate decision. Studies confirm that the patient's satisfaction with the decision reached is likely to be highest when the patient has been adequately informed and when her level of involvement in the decision is consistent with her own wishes and expectations.22,23 It is also important to recognize that the issue of breast reconstruction may play a role in the patient's decision to elect for mastectomy as opposed to breast-conserving surgery.
Breast reconstruction generally consists of two stages: restoration of the breast mound and reconstruction of the nipple–areola complex. Reconstruction of the breast mound itself can be performed with the use of either implants or autogenous tissues. The choice of technique is dictated by a variety of factors that include the size and shape of the native breast, the location and type of cancer, the availability of tissues around the breast and at other sites, the age of the patient, the patient's medical risk factors, and the type of adjuvant therapy. The final decision is often made on the basis of the patient's preference. The patient's selecting the technique and understanding its nature will result in the best aesthetic result and, more importantly, maximize her satisfaction and quality of life.24,25
Reconstruction of the nipple–areola complex is typically performed once both reconstruction of the breast mound and administration of any adjuvant therapy are complete. For patients who will undergo unilateral reconstruction, surgery (breast reduction, augmentation, or lift) may be performed on the contralateral breast to maximize breast symmetry. This matching procedure may be performed at the time of unilateral reconstruction or at a second stage.
Reconstruction with Implants
Current options for implant-based reconstruction include immediate reconstruction with a standard or adjustable implant, two-stage reconstruction with a tissue expander followed by an implant, or reconstruction with the combination of an implant and autogenous tissue.
Single-stage implant reconstruction is appropriate for the rare patient who has a small, nonptotic breast and an adequate amount of good-quality skin and muscle that will permit immediate placement of the implant. The disadvantage of the single-stage approach is that aesthetic outcomes tend not to be as good as two-stage reconstructions and, in many cases, a second, revisionary procedure is necessitated. Consequently, this approach is not used for the majority of implant-based reconstructions.
For two-stage reconstruction, a tissue expander is placed in the submuscular position (usually under the pectoralis major and serratus anterior muscles) at the time of mastectomy (Figure 1Figure 1
Breast Reconstruction Involving a Tissue Expander and Implant.). In the early postoperative period, the tissue expander is serially inflated with saline during weekly office visits. Expansions may be performed concurrently with the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy. Once the expansions are completed (after 6 to 8 weeks), the tissues are allowed to relax and adjust to the new position for another 1 to 2 months (or until after the adjuvant chemotherapy is completed). The exchange of the tissue expander and the final implant is then performed as an outpatient procedure. The two-stage technique of tissue expander–implant reconstruction has become the most common approach to implant-based reconstruction.26-28 Many patients who are candidates for implant reconstruction have a skin–muscle envelope that is inadequate for expansion. In such cases, the addition of autogenous tissue (most commonly the latissimus myocutaneous flap) may be required for adequate coverage of the expander and implant.29 Contributing factors may include a large skin resection at the time of mastectomy and multiple scars and radiation injury to the skin or muscle, creating a nonexpandable pocket.30 The addition of autogenous tissue to implant reconstruction increases the length and complexity of the procedure, as well as the potential morbidity at the donor site on the back. Thus, the combination of autogenous tissue–based reconstruction and tissue–implant reconstruction is generally reserved for highly selected patients.
The breast implants themselves are of two basic types: saline and silicone gel. The outside shell for all implants is made from solid silicone and can be either textured or smooth. Both types of implants can be anatomically shaped (as teardrops) or round. Most plastic surgeons think that silicone implants tend to provide a softer, more natural feel and tend to maintain their shape better than saline implants. Although there has been much controversy generated by the use of silicone over the past two decades, it is now clear that silicone and breast implants are not linked to cancer, immunologic or neurologic disorders, or any other systemic disease.31-34 The potential risk to patients remains in the possibility that silicone can leak into local tissues. Although this creates no known risk to the patient,35,36 for some, saline implants will provide greater peace of mind. On the other hand, saline implants tend to be firmer, provide less natural fullness in the upper portion of the breast, and are much more likely to lead to visible rippling.
Autogenous Tissue–Based Reconstruction
The breast mound can also be reconstructed using the patient's own tissue. A variety of donor sites have been described for reconstruction of the breast, including the abdomen, back, buttocks, and thighs.37,38 In all cases, a flap of tissue is transferred to the chest to reconstruct the mound. Skin, fat, and muscle are transferred either as a pedicled flap, with its own vascular supply, or as a free flap which requires microvascular reattachment of the blood vessels.
The most common pedicled myocutaneous flap is the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap (Figure 2Figure 2
Breast Reconstruction Involving a Pedicled Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous (TRAM) Flap.).39,40 This flap consists of excess skin and soft tissue in the infraumbilical area overlying the rectus abdominis muscle, together with the rectus muscle itself, which is perfused by the superior epigastric vessels.41 The myocutaneous flap is transferred through a tunnel created under the skin of the abdominal wall, up to the chest. The anterior rectus sheath is often sutured closed, but in some cases, particularly if both rectus muscles are used, synthetic mesh may be necessary for closure. The skin of the abdomen is closed, leaving a low, horizontal abdominal scar, and the umbilicus is set into the newly positioned abdominal skin.Skin and fat overlying the latissimus dorsi muscle can also be transferred to the chest (Figure 3Figure 3
Breast Reconstruction Involving a Latissimus Dorsi Flap, Tissue Expander, and Implant.).42 The blood supply to the latissimus dorsi flap is derived from the thoracodorsal vessels that originate from the axillary vessels. This flap is rotated from the back of the chest to the front. The volume of fat and skin transferred through this approach is much more limited than that when a TRAM flap is used, and therefore the latissimus dorsi flap is used only to reconstruct very small breast mounds. It is more often used in combination with implants to provide cover for the prosthesis in patients with insufficient skin or in those who have previously undergone radiation in whom tissue expansion is not possible.43 Tissue can also be transferred to the chest from distant sites by reattaching the principal flap vessels to blood vessels in the chest, a process called free-flap reconstruction. The two most common recipient vessels for breast reconstruction are the thoracodorsal and internal thoracic vessels.44 The thoracodorsal vessels in the axilla are accessed through either the axillary-dissection incision or the mastectomy incision. The internal thoracic vessels require removal of the third or fourth rib cartilages to provide adequate access.
The most common free-flap donor site for breast reconstruction is the abdomen. One type of flap originating from the abdomen is a myocutaneous flap based on the inferior epigastric vessels that supply the rectus abdominis muscle (free TRAM flap) (Figure 4Figure 4
Breast Reconstruction Involving a Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous (TRAM) Flap.). Another is a skin-and-fat “perforator” flap based on one or two perforating vessels that pass from the inferior epigastric vessels through the rectus muscle into the fat and skin (deep inferior epigastric perforator [DIEP] flap).45,46 Other free flaps include those from the infraumbilical area (superficial inferior epigastric artery [SIEA] flap)47,48 and the buttocks (gluteus myocutaneous free flap or superior gluteal artery perforator [SGAP] flap).49-53 Immediate versus Delayed Reconstruction
Breast reconstruction may be performed either immediately or after a delay. Historically, reconstruction was purposefully delayed so that the patient would be able to first live with her deformity and thus better appreciate her reconstructed result. In addition, it was assumed that the absence of a reconstructed breast mound would allow for more effective monitoring of the patient for recurrence. However, subsequent studies have failed to show a psychological advantage of delaying reconstructive surgery,54 and there is now clear evidence that neither implant-based nor autogenous tissue–based reconstruction has any effect on the incidence or detection of cancer recurrence.10,11,55-61 Technically, immediate reconstruction allows for the preservation of critical anatomical structures such as the inframammary fold and maximizes the amount of native skin available for the reconstructive process, thereby maximizing the overall aesthetic result. In addition, the preservation of body image, femininity, and sexuality through the immediate reconstruction of a breast mound can be psychologically beneficial and can significantly reduce postoperative emotional stress.54 For these reasons, immediate reconstruction is generally preferred.
Costs
The initial costs for implant-based reconstruction tend to be lower than those for autogenous tissue–based reconstruction. In an analysis from one institution of procedures performed between 1987 and 1997, the mean initial cost of implant-based procedures was $15,497 (range, $6,422 to $40,015), whereas for autogenous procedures it was $19,607 (range, $11,948 to $49,402).62 However, these figures do not take into account the costs of subsequent procedures for implant recipients, including replacement of the tissue expander with the implant, as well as revisionary procedures that tend to be more common for implant recipients. Thus, the cost advantage of implants may diminish over time.63
Advantages and Disadvantages
All procedures for breast reconstruction are associated with an increase in morbidity beyond that associated with mastectomy alone. Each procedure has advantages and disadvantages that must be weighed by the patient and her physicians to reach an appropriate decision.
Implants
The advantages of implant reconstruction include a relatively short procedure and period of anesthesia (1 to 2 hours) and no scars or other complications at a donor site. Important disadvantages of implant-based reconstruction include the prolonged time to achieving a breast mound and multiple visits to the plastic surgeon for inflation of the tissue expander. Early complications after placement of the tissue expander include infection, hematoma, and extrusion of the implant.26 Late complications may occur after insertion of the final implant and include capsular contracture (scarring and contracture around the implant, causing deformity), leak or rupture, and infection, any of which can potentially lead to removal or exchange of the implant.27 The incidence of complications is significantly increased in patients with a history of irradiation and those who receive radiation after mastectomy.26,27,64,65 For many of these patients, autogenous tissue may be a better option for reconstruction (see the Areas of Uncertainty section).
The ultimate aesthetic result achieved with implant reconstruction is also limited because the shape of the final breast mound is more rounded in appearance and there is limited projection of the lower portion of the breast and minimal-to-no ptosis (Figure 5AFigure 5
Anteroposterior Views of Breast Reconstruction., and photograph 1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org). Thus, unless the patient has a contralateral breast that has the appearance of an implant, modification procedures to the other breast (augmentation mammaplasty, mastopexy, and reduction mammaplasty) become necessary in order to improve breast symmetry (such as that achieved in bilateral implant-based reconstruction) (Figure 5B, and photograph 2 in the Supplementary Appendix).Autogenous Tissue–Based Reconstruction
The advantage of reconstruction with autogenous tissue includes the creation of a softer, more ptotic and natural-appearing breast mound in a single procedure (Figure 5C, and photograph 3 in the Supplementary Appendix).24,66 The TRAM flap especially provides a substantial amount of skin and fat for reconstruction. Disadvantages of autogenous tissue–based reconstruction include longer duration of anesthesia (5 to 10 hours), more blood loss, a longer recovery period, risk of necrosis of portions of the transferred fat and skin, and problems at the donor site, which can include wide, unsightly scars, abdominal weakness, and abdominal bulge or hernia.62,67-69 The risk of complications tends to be higher in older and more obese patients as well as those with compromised vascular microcirculation, such as smokers and patients with diabetes.
Free-flap procedures have the advantage that less muscle is harvested at the donor site; the free TRAM flap, for example, uses only a small part of the rectus abdominis muscle, as compared to the entire muscle in a pedicled TRAM.70 Free flaps often create better aesthetic contours, since there is no bulging of muscle in the tunnel through the upper abdomen (Figure 5D, and photograph 4 in the Supplementary Appendix).67 Free flaps also generally provide the optimal blood supply to the transferred tissues, reducing the risk of necrosis of fat.45 The disadvantages of free-tissue transfer include the increased duration of surgery (6 to 8 hours) and the potential risk of thrombosis of microvascular anastomoses.
Areas of Uncertainty
Patients who require radiation therapy for management of their breast cancer pose a unique set of challenges to the reconstructive surgeon. For the patient who has already received radiotherapy before reconstructive surgery, implant-based procedures are often problematic. Tissue expansion is difficult in the previously irradiated tissues, and the risk of infection, the need for a tissue expander, and the risk of subsequent extrusion of an implant are increased.29 Therefore, the most predictable results after breast irradiation usually involve the use of autogenous tissue that was not exposed to the radiation. However, as noted above, some patients are not ideal candidates for flap-based procedures.
For the patient who has not yet received radiotherapy, the reconstructive procedure itself is less complicated. However, subsequent irradiation has an unpredictable effect on the outcome of both implant-based and autogenous tissue–based reconstruction. If the administration of adjuvant radiotherapy is anticipated, many plastic surgeons will not immediately perform reconstruction with either implants or autogenous tissue because of the potential for significant capsular contracture in implant reconstructions and severe fibrosis or atrophy of the autogenous-tissue flap.71 However, one option for patients who will be receiving radiation therapy but who wish to receive an implant is to initiate tissue expansion immediately after mastectomy, completing the process (inserting the final implant) several weeks before the therapy begins.72 Thus, satisfactory planning for reconstructive surgery in the patient who has received or will receive radiotherapy requires consideration of a range of issues, and the best approach for an individual patient is not always clear.
Guidelines
No major medical or surgical societies have published formal guidelines specifically addressing the role of breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, in its 2008 Clinical Practice Guideline on breast cancer, lists the available options for breast reconstruction as well as the issues concerning radiation therapy.73 It notes in particular the increased risk of complications after reconstructive surgery in smokers and concludes that smoking should be considered a relative contraindication to breast reconstruction, and patients should be made aware of the risks. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons provides an undated physician's counseling guide on breast reconstruction.74 It lists selection criteria and risk factors for undergoing reconstructive surgery and states that the indication for reconstruction is that the patient is interested in undergoing surgery to reconstruct her breast mound or mounds “for reasons that may include the maintenance of personal, family or sexual relationships.”
Dr. Cordeiro reports receiving grant support from the National Endowment for Plastic Surgery of the Plastic Surgery Education Foundation, which receives funding from several corporate partners including Canfield Imaging, Ethicon, Integra, LifeCell, Medicis Aesthetics, Mentor, Stryker, and Allergan. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Source Information
From the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; and the Weill Medical College of Cornell University — both in New York.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Cordeiro at the Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., Rm. MRI1007B, New York, NY 10021.
- References
References
1
Cancer facts & figures 2007. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2007. (Accessed September 15, 2008, at http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf.)
2
Barlow WE ,Taplin SH ,Yoshida CK ,Buist DS ,Seger D ,Brown M . Cost comparison of mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:447-455
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Jakesz R ,Samonigg H ,Gnant M , et al. Significant increase in breast conservation in 16 years of trials conducted by the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Ann Surg 2003;237:556-564
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Nold RJ ,Beamer RL ,Helmer SD ,McBoyle MF . Factors influencing a woman's choice to undergo breast-conserving surgery versus modified radical mastectomy. Am J Surg 2000;180:413-418
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Molenaar S ,Oort F ,Sprangers M , et al. Predictors of patients' choices for breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: a prospective study. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2123-2130
Web of Science | Medline6
Temple WJ ,Russell ML ,Parsons LL , et al. Conservation surgery for breast cancer as the preferred choice: a prospective analysis. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3367-3373
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Elder EE ,Brandberg Y ,Bjorklund T , et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction in breast cancer patients after immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective study. Breast 2005;14:201-208
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Howard MA ,Polo K ,Pusic AL , et al. Breast cancer local recurrence after mastectomy and TRAM flap reconstruction: incidence and treatment options. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:1381-1386
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Vandeweyer E ,Deraemaecker R ,Nogaret JM ,Hertens D . Immediate breast reconstruction with implants and adjuvant chemotherapy: a good option? Acta Chir Belg 2003;103:98-101
Web of Science | Medline10
Murphy RX Jr ,Wahhab S ,Rovito PF , et al. Impact of immediate reconstruction on the local recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomy. Ann Plast Surg 2003;50:333-338
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Vandeweyer E ,Hertens D ,Nogaret JM ,Deraemaecker R . Immediate breast reconstruction with saline-filled implants: no interference with the oncologic outcome? Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107:1409-1412
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
American Society of Plastic Surgery. 2006 Reconstructive surgery procedures. (Accessed September 15, 2008, at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/media/statistics/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=23769.)
13
Idem. 1994 Breast surgery statistics — aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. (Accessed September 15, 2008, at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/media/statistics/1994-Breast-Surgery-Statistics-Aesthetic-And-Reconstructive-Surgery.cfm.)
14
Rowland JH ,Desmond KA ,Meyerowitz BE ,Belin TR ,Wyatt GE ,Ganz PA . Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1422-1429[Erratum, J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:68.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Parker PA ,Youssef A ,Walker S , et al. Short-term and long-term psychosocial adjustment and quality of life in women undergoing different surgical procedures for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:3078-3089
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Dean C ,Chetty U ,Forrest AP . Effects of immediate breast reconstruction on psychosocial morbidity after mastectomy. Lancet 1983;1:459-462
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Metcalfe KA ,Semple JL ,Narod SA . Satisfaction with breast reconstruction in women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a descriptive study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114:360-366
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Roth RS ,Lowery JC ,Davis J ,Wilkins EG . Quality of life and affective distress in women seeking immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116:993-1002
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
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;36:1938-1943
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
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;75:940-947
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Harcourt DM ,Rumsey NJ ,Ambler NR , et al. The psychological effect of mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:1060-1068
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Sheehan J ,Sherman KA ,Lam T ,Boyages J . Association of information satisfaction, psychological distress and monitoring coping style with post-decision regret following breast reconstruction. Psychooncology 2007;16:342-351
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Lantz PM ,Janz NK ,Fagerlin A , et al. Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Serv Res 2005;40:745-767
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Saulis AS ,Mustoe TA ,Fine NA . A retrospective analysis of patient satisfaction with immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction: comparison of three common procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:1669-1678
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Roth RS ,Lowery JC ,Davis J ,Wilkins EG . Psychological factors predict patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:2008-2017
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Cordeiro PG ,McCarthy CM . A single surgeon's 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: I. A prospective analysis of early complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:825-831
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Cordeiro PG ,McCarthy CM . A single surgeon's 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. II. An analysis of long-term complications, aesthetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:832-839
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2007 Reconstructive surgery procedures. (Accessed September 15, 2008, at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/media/statistics/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=29436.)
29
Spear SL ,Onyewu C . Staged breast reconstruction with saline-filled implants in the irradiated breast: recent trends and therapeutic implications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:930-942
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Evans GR ,Schusterman MA ,Kroll SS , et al. Reconstruction and the radiated breast: is there a role for implants? Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;96:1111-1118
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Deapen DM ,Bernstein L ,Brody GS . Are breast implants anticarcinogenic? A 14-year follow-up of the Los Angeles Study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;99:1346-1353
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline32
Deapen D ,Hamilton A ,Bernstein L ,Brody GS . Breast cancer stage at diagnosis and survival among patients with prior breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:535-540
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline33
Karlson EW ,Hankinson SE ,Liang MH , et al. Association of silicone breast implants with immunologic abnormalities: a prospective study. Am J Med 1999;106:11-19
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline34
Sanchez-Guerrero J ,Colditz GA ,Karlson EW ,Hunter DJ ,Speizer FE ,Liang MH . Silicone breast implants and the risk of connective-tissue diseases and symptoms. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1666-1670
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline35
Gaubitz M ,Jackisch C ,Domschke W ,Heindel W ,Pfleiderer B . Silicone breast implants: correlation between implant ruptures, magnetic resonance spectroscopically estimated silicone presence in the liver, antibody status and clinical symptoms. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:129-135
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline36
Brown SL ,Pennello G ,Berg WA ,Soo MS ,Middleton MS . Silicone gel breast implant rupture, extracapsular silicone, and health status in a population of women. J Rheumatol 2001;28:996-1003
Web of Science | Medline37
Vega SJ ,Bossert RP ,Serletti JM . Improving outcomes in bilateral breast reconstruction using autogenous tissue. Ann Plast Surg 2006;56:487-491
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline38
Tachi M ,Yamada A . Choice of flaps for breast reconstruction. Int J Clin Oncol 2005;10:289-297
CrossRef | Medline39
Marin-Gutzke M ,Sanchez-Olaso A ,Fernandez-Camacho FJ ,Mirelis-Otero E . Anatomic and clinical study of rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps based on the superior epigastric system: ipsilateral pedicled TRAM flap as a safe alternative. Ann Plast Surg 2005;54:356-360
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline40
Serletti JM . Breast reconstruction with the TRAM flap: pedicled and free. J Surg Oncol 2006;94:532-537
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline41
Boyd JB ,Taylor GI ,Corlett R . The vascular territories of the superior epigastric and the deep inferior epigastric systems. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984;73:1-16
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline42
Hultman CS ,McCraw J . Breast reconstruction with the autogenous latissimus flap: current indications, technique, and outcomes. Breast Dis 2002;16:65-72
Medline43
Delay E ,Gounot N ,Bouillot A ,Zlatoff P ,Rivoire M . Autologous latissimus breast reconstruction: a 3-year clinical experience with 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;102:1461-1478
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline44
Haywood RM ,Raurell A ,Perks AG ,Sassoon EM ,Logan AM ,Phillips J . Autologous free tissue breast reconstruction using the internal mammary perforators as recipient vessels. Br J Plast Surg 2003;56:689-691
CrossRef | Medline45
Bassiouny MM ,Maamoun SI , El-Shazly Sel-D,Youssef OZ . TRAM flap for immediate post mastectomy reconstruction: comparison between pedicled and free transfer. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 2005;17:231-238
Medline46
Garvey PB ,Buchel EW ,Pockaj BA , et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:1711-1721
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline47
Spiegel AJ ,Khan FN . An intraoperative algorithm for use of the SIEA flap for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:1450-1459
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline48
Holm C ,Mayr M ,Hofter 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;60:946-951
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline49
Shaw WW . Superior gluteal free flap breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 1998;25:267-274
Web of Science | Medline50
Fujino T ,Abe O ,Enomoto K . Primary reconstruction of the breast by free myocutaneous gluteal flap. Int Adv Surg Oncol 1981;4:127-143
Medline51
Guerra AB ,Soueid N ,Metzinger SE , et al. Simultaneous bilateral breast reconstruction with superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flaps. Ann Plast Surg 2004;53:305-310
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline52
Allen RJ . The superior gluteal artery perforator flap. Clin Plast Surg 1998;25:293-302
Web of Science | Medline53
Feller AM ,Richter-Heine I ,Rudolf KD . The superior gluteal artery perforator flap (S-GAP-Flap). Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2002;34:257-261
CrossRef | Medline54
Al-Ghazal SK ,Sully L ,Fallowfield L ,Blamey RW . The psychological impact of immediate rather than delayed breast reconstruction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000;26:17-19
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline55
McCarthy CM ,Pusic AL ,Sclafani L , et al. Breast cancer recurrence following prosthetic, postmastectomy reconstruction: incidence, detection, and treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:381-388
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline56
Meretoja TJ ,von Smitten KA ,Leidenius MH ,Svarvar C ,Heikkila PS ,Jahkola TA . Local recurrence of stage 1 and 2 breast cancer after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction in a 15-year series. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007;33:1142-1145
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline57
Munhoz AM ,Arruda E ,Montag E , et al. Immediate skin-sparing mastectomy reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap: technical aspects and outcome. Breast J 2007;13:470-478
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline58
Langstein HN ,Cheng MH ,Singletary SE , et al. Breast cancer recurrence after immediate reconstruction: patterns and significance. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:712-722
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline59
Rinker BD ,Bowling JT ,Vasconez HC . Blood transfusion and risk of metastatic disease or recurrence in patients undergoing immediate TRAM flap breast reconstruction: a clinical study and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:2001-2007
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline60
Vaughan A ,Dietz JR ,Aft R , et al. Scientific Presentation Award: patterns of local breast cancer recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Am J Surg 2007;194:438-443
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline61
Huang CJ ,Hou MF ,Lin SD , et al. Comparison of local recurrence and distant metastases between breast cancer patients after postmastectomy radiotherapy with and without immediate TRAM flap reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:1079-1088
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline62
Spear SL ,Mardini S ,Ganz JC . Resource cost comparison of implant-based breast reconstruction versus TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;112:101-105
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline63
Kroll SS ,Evans GR ,Reece GP , et al. Comparison of resource costs between implant-based and TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;97:364-372
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline64
Alderman AK ,Wilkins EG ,Kim HM ,Lowery JC . Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:2265-2274
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline65
Ascherman JA ,Hanasono MM ,Newman MI ,Hughes DB . Implant reconstruction in breast cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:359-365
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline66
Alderman AK ,Kuhn LE ,Lowery JC ,Wilkins EG . Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:7-12
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline67
Blondeel N ,Vanderstraeten GG ,Monstrey SJ , et al. The donor site morbidity of free DIEP flaps and free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 1997;50:322-330
CrossRef | Medline68
Blondeel N ,Boeckx WD ,Vanderstraeten GG , et al. The fate of the oblique abdominal muscles after free TRAM flap surgery. Br J Plast Surg 1997;50:315-321
CrossRef | Medline69
Nahabedian MY ,Momen B . Lower abdominal bulge after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP) breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2005;54:124-129
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline70
Suominen S ,Asko-Seljavaara S ,von Smitten K ,Ahovuo J ,Sainio P ,Alaranta H . Sequelae in the abdominal wall after pedicled or free TRAM flap surgery. Ann Plast Surg 1996;36:629-636
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline71
Tran NV ,Chang DW ,Gupta A ,Kroll SS ,Robb GL . Comparison of immediate and delayed free TRAM flap breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:78-82
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline72
Cordeiro PG ,Pusic AL ,Disa JJ ,McCormick B ,VanZee K . Irradiation after immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: outcomes, complications, aesthetic results, and satisfaction in 156 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:877-881
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline73
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. (Accessed September 15, 2008, at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast.pdf.)
74
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Breast reconstruction. (Accessed September 15, 2008, at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/medical_professionals/publications/Physician-Counseling-Guides-Breast-Reconstruction.cfm.)
- Citing Articles (38)
Citing Articles
1
Tonya Martin-Dunlap, Terence M. Myckatyn, Julie A. Margenthaler. (2012) Who Benefits from Oncoplastic Surgical Techniques?. Current Breast Cancer Reports
CrossRef2
C.A. Garcia-Etienne, D. Forcellini, A. Sagona, F. Caviggioli, E. Barbieri, G. Cornegliani, S. Giannasi, C. Tinterri. (2012) Breast reconstruction: A quality measure for breast cancer care?. The Breast 21:1, 105-106
CrossRef3
Warren M. Rozen, Xuan Ye, Pedro L. Guio-Aguilar, Alberto Alonso-Burgos, John Goldblatt, Mark W. Ashton, Iain S. Whitaker. (2012) Autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction and coronary artery bypass grafting: an anatomical study and clinical implications. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
CrossRef4
Gusztáv Gulyás, Zoltán Mátrai, Csaba Kunos, Pál Pesthy, Zoltán Doleviczényi, Miklós Kásler. (2012) Modern emlősebészet. Orvosi Hetilap 153:1, 31-38
CrossRef5
H.M. Heneghan, R.S. Prichard, R. Lyons, P.J. Regan, J.L. Kelly, C. Malone, R. McLaughlin, K.J. Sweeney, M.J. Kerin. (2011) Quality of life after immediate breast reconstruction and skin-sparing mastectomy – A comparison with patients undergoing breast conserving surgery. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 37:11, 937-943
CrossRef6
Gedge D. Rosson, Sachin M. Shridharani, Michael Magarakis, Michele A. Manahan, Sahael M. Stapleton, Marta M. Gilson, Jaime I. Flores, Basak Basdag, Elliot K. Fishman. (2011) Three-dimensional computed tomographic angiography to predict weight and volume of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Microsurgery 31:7, 510-516
CrossRef7
Ângela Erguy Zucatto, Jorge Villanova Biazús, Márcia Portela de Melo, Jeruza Lavanholi Neyeloff, Edison Capp, Helena von Eye Corleta. (2011) Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap: Impact on Breast Cancer Recurrence after Mastectomy. The Breast Journalno-no
CrossRef8
Zoltán Mátrai, Gusztáv Gulyás, László Tóth, Ákos Sávolt, Csaba Kunos, Pál Pesthy, Alexandra Bartal, Éva Szabó, Miklós Kásler. (2011) Emlőnagyobbító műtét után kialakult emlőrákok ellátásának speciális megfontolásai. Orvosi Hetilap 152:42, 1679-1691
CrossRef9
Natalia Vlassova, Gerald Lazarus. (2011) Use of Apligraf for a devascularized ulcer secondary to mastectomy and radiation. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 65:4, e132-e134
CrossRef10
Ferry Melchels, Paul Severin Wiggenhauser, David Warne, Mark Barry, Fook Rhu Ong, Woon Shin Chong, Dietmar Werner Hutmacher, Jan-Thorsten Schantz. (2011) CAD/CAM-assisted breast reconstruction. Biofabrication 3:3, 034114
CrossRef11
I. Sarfati, T. Ihrai, G. Kaufman, C. Nos, K.B. Clough. (2011) Adipose-tissue grafting to the post-mastectomy irradiated chest wall: Preparing the ground for implant reconstruction. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 64:9, 1161-1166
CrossRef12
Michael Rosenberg, David Palaia, Anthony Cahan, Sharon DeChiara, Karen Arthur, Jane Petro, Danielle DeLuca-Pytell, Kathryn Spanknebel, Rafael Magana, Philip Bonanno. (2011) Immediate Single-Stage Reconstruction of the Breast Utilizing FlexHD and Implant Following Skin-Sparing Mastectomy. American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery 28:3, 145-155
CrossRef13
Paul S. Wiggenhauser, Daniel F. Müller, Ferry P. W. Melchels, José T. Egaña, Katharina Storck, Helena Mayer, Peter Leuthner, Daniel Skodacek, Ursula Hopfner, Hans G. Machens, Rainer Staudenmaier, Jan T. Schantz. (2011) Engineering of vascularized adipose constructs. Cell and Tissue Research
CrossRef14
Adelyn L. Ho, Scott Tyldesley, Sheina A. Macadam, Peter A. Lennox. (2011) Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Autologous Breast Reconstruction in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Patients: A UBC Perspective. Annals of Surgical Oncology
CrossRef15
T.H.C. Damen, W. Wei, M.A.M. Mureau, R. Tjong-Joe-Wai, S.O.P. Hofer, M.L. Essink-Bot, S.E.R. Hovius, S. Polinder. (2011) Medium-term cost analysis of breast reconstructions in a single Dutch centre: A comparison of implants, implants preceded by tissue expansion, LD transpositions and DIEP flaps. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 64:8, 1043-1053
CrossRef16
Visnu Lohsiriwat, Giuseppe Curigliano, Mario Rietjens, Aron Goldhirsch, Jean Yves Petit. (2011) Autologous fat transplantation in patients with breast cancer: “silencing” or “fueling” cancer recurrence?. The Breast 20:4, 351-357
CrossRef17
Jean Yves Petit, Visnu Lohsiriwat, Krishna B. Clough, Isabelle Sarfati, Tarik Ihrai, Mario Rietjens, Paolo Veronesi, Fabio Rossetto, Anna Scevola, Emmanuel Delay. (2011) The Oncologic Outcome and Immediate Surgical Complications of Lipofilling in Breast Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Study—Milan-Paris-Lyon Experience of 646 Lipofilling Procedures. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 128:2, 341-346
CrossRef18
Toni Zhong, Stefan O. P. Hofer, David R. McCready, Lindsay M. Jacks, Francis E. Cook, Nancy Baxter. (2011) A Comparison of Surgical Complications Between Immediate Breast Reconstruction and Mastectomy: The Impact on Delivery of Chemotherapy—An Analysis of 391 Procedures. Annals of Surgical Oncology
CrossRef19
Shailesh Agarwal, Lisa Pappas, Leigh Neumayer, Jayant Agarwal. (2011) An Analysis of Immediate Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Frequency Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. The Breast Journal 17:4, 352-358
CrossRef20
Zoltán Mátrai, Gusztáv Gulyás, László Tóth, Ákos Sávolt, Csaba Kunos, Pál Pesthy, Alexandra Bartal, Miklós Kásler. (2011) Az emlőbimbó-megtartó mastectomia lehetséges helye a modern emlősebészetben. Orvosi Hetilap 152:31, 1233-1249
CrossRef21
Z. E. Winters, H. J. Thomson. (2011) Assessing the clinical effectiveness of breast reconstruction through patient-reported outcome measures. British Journal of Surgery 98:3, 323-325
CrossRef22
Jason Roostaeian, Christopher Crisera. (2011) Current options in breast reconstruction with or without radiotherapy. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 23:1, 44-50
CrossRef23
S. Potter, A. Brigic, P. F. Whiting, S. J. Cawthorn, K. N. L. Avery, J. L. Donovan, J. M. Blazeby. (2011) Reporting Clinical Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:1, 31-46
CrossRef24
Min Young Koo, Se Kyung Lee, Sung Mo Hur, Soo Youn Bae, Min-Young Choi, Dong Hui Cho, Sangmin Kim, Jun-Ho Choe, Jung-Han Kim, Jee Soo Kim, Jeong Eon Lee, Seok Jin Nam, Jung-Hyun Yang. (2011) Results from Over One Year of Follow-Up for Absorbable Mesh Insertion in Partial Mastectomy. Yonsei Medical Journal 52:5, 803
CrossRef25
Colleen M. McCarthy, Anne F. Klassen, Stefan J. Cano, Amie Scott, Nancy VanLaeken, Peter A. Lennox, Amy K. Alderman, Babak J. Mehrara, Joseph J. Disa, Peter G. Cordeiro, Andrea L. Pusic. (2010) Patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Cancer 116:24, 5584-5591
CrossRef26
Zoltán Mátrai, Gusztáv Gulyás, László Tóth, Ákos Sávolt, Mária Bidlek, Éva Szabó, Pál Pesthy, Csaba Kunos, Alexandra Bartal, Miklós Kásler. (2010) Emlőmegtartásos onkoplasztikai sebészi lehetőségek centrális elhelyezkedésű malignus emlőtumorok kezelésében. Orvosi Hetilap 151:51, 2105-2112
CrossRef27
Zoë Ellen Winters, John R. Benson, Andrea L. Pusic. (2010) A Systematic Review of the Clinical Evidence to Guide Treatment Recommendations in Breast Reconstruction Based on Patient- Reported Outcome Measures and Health-Related Quality of Life. Annals of Surgery 252:6, 929-942
CrossRef28
Silvia Formenti. (2010) More radiotherapy for radiation-induced second malignancies?. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 124:3, 851-852
CrossRef29
Fa-Cheng Li, Hong-Chuan Jiang, Jie Li. (2010) Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Implants After Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: A Report of 96 Cases. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 34:6, 705-710
CrossRef30
Ismail Jatoi, John R. Benson, Siong-Seng Liau, Yijun Chen, Robin M. Cisco, Jeffrey A. Norton, Jeffrey F. Moley, Katherine W. Khalifeh, Michael A. Choti. (2010) The Role of Surgery in Cancer Prevention. Current Problems in Surgery 47:10, 750-830
CrossRef31
Shailesh Agarwal, Jerome H. Liu, Christopher A. Crisera, Saundra Buys, Jayant P. Agarwal. (2010) Survival in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Immediate Breast Reconstruction. The Breast Journal 16:5, 503-509
CrossRef32
Martina Marín-Gutzke, Alberto Sánchez-Olaso. (2010) Reconstructive surgery in young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 123:S1, 67-74
CrossRef33
S. Ciesla, K. Polom. (2010) The effect of immediate breast reconstruction with Becker-25 prosthesis on the preservation of proper body posture in patients after mastectomy. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 36:7, 625-631
CrossRef34
J.S. Wong. (2010) Effect of postoperative radiotherapy on autologous deep inferior epigastric perforator flap volume after immediate breast reconstruction. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 21:2, 182-183
CrossRef35
(2010) Advances in surgery. ANZ Journal of Surgery 80:1-2, 107-109
CrossRef36
Jonathan D. McCue, Martin S. Lacey, Bruce L. Cunningham. (2010) Breast Tissue Expander Device Volume: Should It Be a Factor?. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 125:1, 59-61
CrossRef37
C.A. Garcia-Etienne, V. Sacchini. (2010) Nipple Areola Skin-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Transverse Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous Flap Reconstruction is an Oncologically Safe Procedure: A Single Center Study. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 21:4, 350-352
CrossRef38
(2009) Breast Reconstruction after Breast-Cancer Surgery. New England Journal of Medicine 360:4, 418-421
Full Text
- Letters
