Submitted:
14 May 2024
Posted:
14 May 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Data Source and Study Design
Study Objectives
Ethical Considerations
Variables and Definitions
Statistical Analysis
3. Results
Overall Trends in Breast Reconstruction
Implant-Based vs. Autologous Reconstruction
Immediate vs. Delayed Reconstruction
Trends in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Techniques
4. Discussion
Implant-Based Reconstruction: Shift Towards Direct-to-Implant Techniques
Rise of Autologous Reconstruction: Emphasis on DIEP Flaps
Shift Towards Immediate Reconstruction
Implications for Clinical Practice and Patient Care
Future Research Directions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sedeta, E.T.; Jobre, B.; Avezbakiyev, B. Breast cancer: Global patterns of incidence, mortality, and trends. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 41, 10528–10528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Gomez, D.B.; Abdulwadood, I.B.; Kosiorek, H.; Hammond, J.B.; Cronin, P.M.; Reece, E.M.; Rebecca, A.; Casey, W.; A Pockaj, B. Postoperative complication impact on quality of life after postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2023, 237, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- von Glinski, M.; Holler, N.; Kümmel, S.; Reinisch, M.; Wallner, C.; Wagner, J.M.; Dadras, M.; Sogorski, A.; Lehnhardt, M.; Behr, B. Autologous Reconstruction After Failed Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Multifactorial Outcome Analysis. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2023, 91, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shauly, O.; Olson, B.; Marxen, T.; Menon, A.; Losken, A.; Patel, K.M. Direct-to-Implant vs. Autologous Tissue Transfer: A meta-analysis of patient reported outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2023, 84, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yesantharao, P.S.; Arquette, C.; Cheesborough, J.E.; Lee, G.K.M.M.; Nazerali, R.S.M.M. Paradigm shifts in alloplastic breast reconstruction: a nationwide analysis of direct-to-implant trends. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2023, 153, 989–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Asaad, M.; Slovacek, C.B.; Mitchell, D.B.; Liu, J.; Selber, J.C.M.; Clemens, M.W.; Chu, C.K.M.; Mericli, A.F.; Butler, C.E. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes of autologous versus implant-based reconstruction following infected breast device explantation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2022, 149, 1080e–1089e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rubenstein, R.N.; Stern, C.S.; Graziano, F.D.; Plotsker, E.L.; Haglich, K.; Tadros, A.B.; Allen, R.J.; Mehrara, B.J.; Matros, E.; Nelson, J.A. Decreasing length of stay in breast reconstruction patients: A national analysis of 2019–2020. J. Surg. Oncol. 2023, 128, 726–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farewell, J.T.; Perez, K.; Henderson, S.; Crook, J.; Hunter, M.; Zhang, A.Y. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer patients. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2023, 84, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aktas, E.H.; Balci, U.D.; Karacaoglu, E. COVID pandemic aftermath: changing dynamics on cosmetic and aesthetic surgery demands. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2023, 47, 1658–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shivkumar, S.; Mehta, V.; Vaddamanu, S.K.; Shetty, U.A.; Alhamoudi, F.H.; Alwadi, M.A.M.; Aldosari, L.I.N.; Alshadidi, A.A.F.; Minervini, G. SSurgical protocols before and after COVID-19—A narrative review. Vaccines 2023, 11, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohn, S.-M.; Lee, H.-C.; Park, S.-H.; Yoon, E.-S. Difference in the outcomes of anterior tenting and wrapping techniques for acellular dermal matrix coverage in prepectoral breast reconstruction. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2023, 85, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samaha, Y.; Chen, J.; Ray, E.C. ADMs and synthetic meshes improve implant-based breast reconstruction aesthetics, but at what cost? J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2023, 80, 178–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoque, S.S.B. (.; Zhou, J.M.; Gartoulla, P.; Hansen, J.M.; Farrell, G.M.; Hopper, I.M. Comparing direct-to-implant and two-stage breast reconstruction in the Australian Breast Device Registry. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2022, 151, 927–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vingan, P.S.B.; Haglich, K.; Coriddi, M.; Allen, R.J.; Disa, J.J.; Dayan, J.H.; Matros, E.M.; Mehrara, B.J.; Nelson, J.A. 54. Assessing Long Term Outcomes in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.-Glob. Open 2023, 11, 26–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varnava, C.; Wiebringhaus, P.; Kampshoff, D.; Hirsch, T.; Kueckelhaus, M. Use of the superficial inferior epigastric vein in breast reconstruction with a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap. Front. Surg. 2023, 10, 1050172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martinez, V.M.B.; Wen, Y.E.B.; Perez, K.M.; Steppe, C.B.; Khan, S.; Haddock, N.; Teotia, S. QS21. Surgical Outcomes of Autologous Breast Reconstruction in Low BMI Patients; Beyond the Gold Standard DIEP Flap. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. - Glob. Open 2022, 10, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwakman, M.; Tan, A.; Boersma, C.; Klinkenbijl, J.; Noorda, E.; de Jong, T.; Francken, A. Long-term quality of life and aesthetic outcomes after breast conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2022, 48, 1692–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shatskikh, M.; Coe, L.; McMahon, M.; Kennedy-Williams, S.; Hil, A.; Martin-Smith, J. O080 Evaluation of patient post-operative outcomes after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2023, 110 (Supplement_3), znad101. 080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Rooij, J.A.F.; Bijkerk, E.; van der Hulst, R.R.J.W.; van Kuijk, S.M.J.; Tuinder, S.M.H. Replacing an implant-based with a DIEP flap breast reconstruction: breast sensation and quality of life. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2023, 152, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guru, S.; Gupta, P.; Bakhtavar, J.; Chauhan, G.; Gupta, K. COVID and Perioperative Considerations. J. Card. Crit. Care TSS 2023, 7, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, Z.; Ioannidi, L.; Ghali, S.; Hamilton, S.; Shtarbanov, P.; Mosahebi, A.; Nikkhah, D. A single-center comparison of unipedicled and bipedicled diep flap early outcomes in 98 patients. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. - Glob. Open 2023, 11, e5089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delgado, J.A.J.; de Monterrey, M.U.; Echeverría, A.E.N.; Sosa, S.H.R.; Pérez, C.I.R.; Díaz, F.R.E.; Reyna, V.H.S. Importance of Reconstructive Breast Surgery after Mastectomy. Int. J. Med Sci. Clin. Res. Stud. 2023, 03, 878–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doherty, C.; Pearce, S.; Baxter, N.; Knowles, S.; Ross, D.; McClure, J.A.; Brackstone, M. Trends in immediate breast reconstruction and radiation after mastectomy: A population study. Breast J. 2020, 26, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]




| Year | Total Breast Reconstruction |
Implant-based Reconstructions |
Autologous Reconstructions |
Immediate Reconstructions |
Delayed Reconstructions |
| 2015 | 106,338 | 86,013 (80.77%) | 20,325 (19.23%) | 74,968 (70.50%) | 31,370 (29.50%) |
| 2016 | 109,256 | 88,606 (81.07%) | 20,650 (18.93%) | 78,932 (72.25%) | 30,324 (27.75%) |
| 2017 | 106,295 | 86,979 (81.96%) | 19,316 (18.04%) | 78,511 (73.86%) | 27,784 (26.14%) |
| 2018 | 101,657 | 83,216 (81.86%) | 18,441 (18.14%) | 75,153 (74.93%) | 26,504 (26.07%) |
| 2019 | 135,996 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2020 | 137,808 | 103,485 (75.50%) | 34,323 (24.50%) | 105,665 (76.68%) | 32,143 (23.32%) |
| 2021 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2022 | 151,641 | 117,957 (78.00%) | 33,684 (22.00%) | 113,075 (74.57%) | 38,566 (25.43%) |
| Reconstruction Type/Timing | Pre-pandemic (n, %) | Pandemic (n, %) | P-value |
| Implant-based | 344,814 (81.41%) | 221,442 (76.51%) | < 0.001 |
| - DTI | 43,922 (10.37%) | 55,358 (19.12%) | |
| - Tissue Expander/implant | 300,892 (71.05%) | 166,084 (57.38%) | |
| Autologous | 78,732 (18.59%) | 68,007 (23.49%) | |
| - TRAM | 18,393 (4.34%) | 6,556 (2.26%) | |
| - DIEP | 36,032 (8.51%) | 43,181 (14.92%) | |
| - LD | 20,862 (4.93%) | 11,275 (3.89%) | |
| - Others | 3,445 (0.81%) | 6,995 (2.42%) | |
| Immediate | 307,564 (72.61%) | 218,740 (75.57%) | |
| Delayed | 115,982 (27.39%) | 70,709 (24.43%) | |
| Total | 423,546 | 289,449 |
| Year | Total Autologous Procedures | DIEP Flaps | TRAM Flaps | Latissimus Dorsi Flaps | Other Flaps |
| 2015 | 20,325 | 8455 (41.60%) | 5210 (25.63%) | 5934 (29.20%) | 726 (3.57%) |
| 2016 | 20,650 | 8585 (41.57%) | 5190 (25.13%) | 6151 (29.79%) | 724 (3.51%) |
| 2017 | 19,316 | 9495 (49.16%) | 4194 (21.71%) | 4589 (23.76%) | 103 (5.37%) |
| 2018 | 18,441 | 9497 (51.50%) | 3799 (20.60%) | 4188 (22.71%) | 957 (5.19%) |
| 2020 | 34,323 | 23324 (67.95%) | 3297 (9.61%) | 6128 (17.85%) | 1574 (4.59%) |
| 2022 | 33,684 | 19857 (58.95%) | 3259 (9.68%) | 5147 (15.28%) | 5421 (16.09%) |
| Year | Total | Immediate Reconstructions | Delayed Reconstructions | Immediate (%) | Delayed (%) |
| 2015 | 106338 | 74968 | 31370 | 70.50% | 29.50% |
| 2016 | 109256 | 78932 | 30324 | 72.25% | 27.75% |
| 2017 | 106295 | 78511 | 27784 | 73.86% | 26.14% |
| 2018 | 101657 | 75153 | 26504 | 73.93% | 26.07% |
| 2020 | 137808 | 105665 | 32143 | 76.68% | 23.32% |
| 2022 | 151641 | 113075 | 38566 | 74.57% | 25.43% |
| Year | Total IBR | DTI | Tissue Expander | DTI (%) | Tissue Expander (%) |
| 2015 | 86,013 | 8,794 | 77,219 | 10.22% | 89.78% |
| 2016 | 88,606 | 9,587 | 79,019 | 10.82% | 89.18% |
| 2017 | 86,979 | 12,246 | 74,733 | 14.08% | 85.92% |
| 2018 | 83,216 | 13,295 | 69,921 | 15.98% | 84.02% |
| 2020 | 103,485 | 19,998 | 83,487 | 19.32% | 80.68% |
| 2022 | 117,957 | 35,360 | 82,597 | 29.98% | 70.02% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).