Background: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast reconstruction trends in the United States, focusing on implant-based and autologous techniques, as well as the timing of reconstruction (immediate vs. delayed). Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' National Plastic Surgery Statistics from 2015 to 2022 was conducted. Annual trends in breast reconstruction procedures were analyzed, comparing the pre-pandemic (2015-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Results: The total number of breast reconstructions increased from 106,338 in 2015 to 151,641 in 2022. The proportion of implant-based reconstructions decreased from 81.41% pre-pandemic to 76.51% during the pandemic (p < 0.001), with a notable rise in direct-to-implant procedures from 10.37% to 19.12% (p < 0.001). Autologous reconstructions increased from 18.59% to 23.49% (p < 0.001). Among autologous techniques, DIEP flaps remained the most popular. Immediate reconstruction rates increased from 72.61% pre-pandemic to 75.57% during the pandemic, while delayed recon-struction rates decreased from 27.39% to 24.43% (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced breast reconstruction trends in the United States, with a shift towards autologous techniques, particularly DIEP flaps, and an in-crease in immediate reconstructions. These changes may reflect adaptations in surgical practice and decision-making processes in response to the unique challenges posed by the pandemic. Further research is needed to assess the long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction associated with these trends.

(1) Background: This work aimed to conduct the first comparative study providing long-term data about patient reported outcome measures as well as donor-site scar assessment and aesthetic evaluation of the reconstructed breasts in patients with DIEP versus PAP flap breast reconstruction. (2) Methods: This prospective, single-center, matched cohort study included a total of 36 patients after DIEP and PAP flap breast reconstruction. Evaluation was done using the Breast-Q and POSAS questionnaire as well as the Breast Aesthetic Scale for cosmetic analysis by four plastic surgeons. (3) Results: Post-operative Breast-Q evaluation revealed no significant differences between both patient groups for the categories physical well-being donor-site, physical well-being breast and satisfaction with the breast. Scar evaluation of the donor-site region showed equivalent results for the thigh and the abdomen concerning the overall opinion of patients and observers. There was no significant difference between both methods of reconstruction for all aspects of breast aesthetics. (4) Conclusions: Similar results of donor-site morbidity, scar quality and aesthetic outcome of the breast in both the DIEP and PAP patient group have been demonstrated. Hence, in cases suitable for both types of reconstruction, the decision can be based on factors such as patients’ lifestyle, leisure activities and preferences.