Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite the growing elderly population, there is limited research specific to this demographic concerning breast reconstruction (BR). Lack of evidence-based BR recommendations in older populations may contribute to misconceptions and subsequent underutilization of BR, especially autologous BR. Patients who received either deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap BR or tissue expander/implant (TE/I) BR by a single surgeon between July 2011 and July 2015 were surveyed postoperatively by using the psychometrically validated BREAST-Q questionnaire to determine patient satisfaction. Patients were categorized into younger and older cohorts based on median age (55 years) and further stratified based on the type of reconstruction. Of the 311 patients surveyed, 95 patients responded (31% response rate). Overall, younger patients (<55 years old, n = 42) compared with older patients (≥55 years old, n = 53) had significantly higher satisfaction with their outcome (mean difference [MD] 12.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-23.15; P = 0.034). In the TE/I group (n = 58), younger patients had significantly higher satisfaction with breasts (MD: 14.17; 95% CI: 2.58-25.75; P = .017) and outcome (MD: 18.25; 95% CI: 3.95-32.5; P = .010) with fewer complications (odds ratio [OR]: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.37-7.86; P = .010). In the DIEP flap group (n = 55), there was no significant difference inr any of the satisfaction outcomes between younger and older patients. Younger patients tend to be more satisfied and demonstrate fewer complications with implant-based BR. In contrast, both younger and older patients undergoing abdominally based autologous BR were equally satisfied with comparable outcomes.

Keywords

breast reconstruction breast cancer transplantation autologous surgical flaps breast implantation tissue expansion patient satisfaction quality of life outcomes surveys and questionnaires retrospective studies

Introduction

In today’s evolving health-care system, patient reported outcomes (PROs) have considerable potential in the determination of surgical quality. In an era of patient-centered care, there is increased recognition among surgeons that many postoperative outcomes are best measured by the patient.¹ Currently, PROs play an important role in the planning of comparative effectiveness research and are used as primary outcomes in surgical trials.² With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, new payment models such as the meaningful use and physician quality and reporting system encourages patient-reported data collection in surgery and targets funding of research from the patient-centered outcomes research Institute.³ Thus, the evaluation of postoperative patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction is an important quality measure in breast cancer care,^4,5 and it plays a key role in determining patients’ and payers’ choices of services and providers. Furthermore, the various techniques available for breast reconstruction make choosing the “right” procedure daunting. Outcomes research can provide patients with objective, reliable information to assist in reconstructive decision-making. Thusly, understanding the impact of these procedures is important to delivering patient-centered care and health policy leaders’ decisions about appropriate allocation of health-care resources for reconstructive surgery.⁶

Despite the growing elderly population, there is very limited research specific to this demographic in regard to breast reconstruction. Although the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer are over the age of 55, rates of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (BR) performed for this age-group are but one-sixth that of younger cohorts.^7
-9 A pooled review of 32 studies reported 24 746 cases of BR in 407 570 mastectomy patients aged 60 years or older, corresponding to a pooled BR rate of only 6.1%.⁷ With advances in screening, detection, and treatment, mortality from breast cancer has decreased in the last 3 decades.¹⁰ With older patients having improved survival and longer lives after the breast cancer diagnosis, a stronger emphasis must be placed on improving their quality of life (QOL). Postmastectomy BR is an important component of doing so as studies have consistently shown improved breast-related QOL outcomes in patients that undergo reconstruction compared to those that do not.^8,11

-16

A recent 2016 systematic review showed that the studies comparing overall complication rates from BR between older and younger cohorts found no significant difference between the 2 groups.^7,11,17

-20 The review was unable to link the rates of complication to the type of reconstruction due to the lack of data provided by most of the included studies.⁷ Only 4 studies in the review investigated the QOL and satisfaction of older patients using PROs of BR. These patients had significantly better scores in breast-related body image and breast-related psychosocial health compared to age-matched controls and mastectomy-only patients and did not differ significantly on such measures from their younger counterparts.^7,8,21 These studies also could not distinguish satisfaction between the various BR modalities.

Now that studies have demonstrated the equivalent benefit and similar complication rate of autologous BR in older and younger patients, additional questions arise concerning the relationship between PROs, age, and specific types of BR.

Although studies have looked at PROs in autologous versus alloplastic reconstruction, these studies failed to factor in age.^22
-24 Our study aims to answer this question by comparing PROs and complications between younger (<55 years old) and older (≥55 years old) patients who have undergone deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and tissue expander/implant (TE/I)-based BR.

Methods

Women who underwent BR by a single surgeon between July 2011 and July 2015 were identified using operative case logs. Following institutional review board approval, data were gathered from a retrospective chart review including patient demographics, type of reconstruction, and complications. All women were patients at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, a National Comprehensive Cancer Center, under the care of the senior author.

Patients were categorized into younger and older cohorts based on median age (55 years) and subsequently stratified based of the type of reconstruction: DIEP-free flap or tissue expander to implant (TE/I) BR. In the TE/I group, patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy, delayed reconstruction, radiation therapy, additional flap reconstruction, placement of acellular dermal matrix, and those with incomplete data were excluded. In the DIEP flap group, those with incomplete data were excluded.

A total of 311 patients were sent the BREAST-Q [BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module (Post Operative) 1.0] questionnaire postoperatively by mail and e-mail. Satisfaction scores were recorded on a scale of 0 to 100. The mean satisfaction scores between younger and older patients were compared and further stratified based on the type of BR. Complications were defined as dehiscence, infection, hematoma, full thickness skin loss, or flap loss requiring reoperation within 30 days.

Questionnaire

The BREAST-Q was developed according to international guidelines to specifically measure health-related QOL after different types of breast surgery and is independently validated.^25
-27 The reconstruction module used in this study measures health-related QOL and satisfaction after BR and is composed of 6 scales: (1) psychosocial well-being, (2) physical well-being, (3) sexual well-being, (4) satisfaction with breasts, (5) satisfaction with outcome, and (6) satisfaction with care.

Statistical Analysis

Satisfaction scores were analyzed using the independent samples t test and summarized as mean difference along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Association between categorical variables is summarized as odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI, and difference was assessed using fisher exact test. To adjust for multiple comparison, Bonferroni correction was applied. The significance level for all comparisons was set at 5% (P < .05). All analyses were performed using SPSS V22.0 statistical analysis software.

Results

Patient Demographics

Out of the 311 surveys distributed to BR patients, a total of 95 survey responses (31%) were received and included in our study. Patient responses collected ranged from 4 months to 6 years from their date of initial operation. The ages ranged from 23 to 82 years, with a median age of 55 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.8. A total of 33 (10.6%) patients experienced 1 or more complications. Out of these 33 patients, 9 complications were in patients under 55 years old (27%) and 24 complications were in patients 55 years and older (73%). Figure 1 illustrates the distribution schemata of our study.

Figure 1.

Patient distribution schemata.

Breast Reconstruction Mean Satisfaction Scores From BREAST-Q Survey

Mean satisfaction scores from the 6 domains of the BREAST-Q reconstruction module were grouped by age and BR procedure. These data are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Breast Reconstruction Mean Satisfaction Scores From the BREAST-Q Survey.

		Grouped BR (DIEP and TE/I) N = 113			Tissue Expander/Implant BR, n = 58			DIEP Flap BR, n = 55
BREAST-Q Measure	Age-Group	n	Mean	P Value	n	Mean	P Value	n	Mean	P Value
Satisfaction with breasts	<55 years	42	69.79	.135	25	71.56	.017	17	67.18	.586
Satisfaction with breasts	≥55 years	53	62.70	.135	33	57.39	.017	20	71.45	.586
Satisfaction with overall outcome	<55 years	42	78.36	.034	25	81.04	.010	17	74.41	.809
Satisfaction with overall outcome	≥55 years	53	66.30	.034	33	62.79	.010	20	72.10	.809
Psychosocial well-being	<55 years	42	71.86	.286	25	70.76	.515	17	73.47	.356
Psychosocial well-being	≥55 years	50	77.09	.286	30	74.88	.515	20	80.75	.356
Sexual well-being	<55 years	42	55.33	.639	25	53.72	.861	17	57.71	.607
Sexual well-being	≥55 years	50	57.88	.639	33	54.93	.861	20	62.30	.607
Physical well-being chest	<55 years	42	68.45	.508	12	71.20	.722	17	64.41	.221
Physical well-being chest	≥55 years	53	71.40	.508	20	69.42	.722	20	74.65	.221
Satisfaction with nipples	<55 years	29	62.55	.567	12	72.00	.279	17	55.88	.855
Satisfaction with nipples	≥55 years	40	57.63	.567	20	61.85	.279	20	53.40	.855
Satisfaction with information provided	<55 years	42	72.90	.740	25	74.68	.226	17	70.29	.334
Satisfaction with information provided	≥55 years	52	71.37	.740	32	67.50	.226	20	77.55	.334
Satisfaction with surgeon	<55 years	42	81.48	.882	25	82.80	.359	17	79.53	.097
Satisfaction with surgeon	≥55 years	53	82.30	.882	33	75.94	.359	20	92.80	.097
Satisfaction with medical staff	<55 years	42	94.93	.659	25	94.52	.556	17	95.53	.817
Satisfaction with medical staff	≥55 years	53	93.53	.659	33	91.79	.556	20	96.40	.817
Satisfaction with office-staff	<55 years	42	94.74	.873	25	95.84	.355	17	93.12	.240
Satisfaction with office-staff	≥55 years	53	94.26	.873	33	92.06	.355	20	97.90	.240

Abbreviations: BR, breast reconstruction; DIEP, deep inferior epigastric perforator; TE/I, tissue expander/implant.

Grouped BRs

Overall, younger patients (<55 years old) compared with older patients (≥55 years old) had significantly higher satisfaction with their outcome (mean difference [MD]: 12.06; 95% CI: 0.96-23.15; P = .034). This trend was consistent in the TE/I group (OR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.37-7.86; P = .010) but not in the DIEP flap group (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.07-18.79; P = .922). Mean satisfaction scores from both BR groups are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Grouped reconstructions mean satisfaction scores.

Tissue Expander/Implant BR

In the TE/I group, younger patients compared with older patients had significantly higher breast satisfaction (MD: 14.17; 95% CI: 2.58-25.75; P = .017) and satisfaction with overall outcome (MD: 18.25; 95% CI: 3.95-32.5; P = .010). Younger patients in this group also had fewer complications (OR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.37-7.86; P = .010). Mean satisfaction scores from the TE/I group are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Tissue expander/implant reconstruction mean satisfaction scores.

Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap BR

In the DIEP flap group, older patients had higher satisfaction with breast, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, physical well-being for chest, satisfaction with information, satisfaction with surgeon and office staff. However, these differences were not statistically significant. There was also no significant difference in complication rates for the DIEP flap between younger and older patients. Mean satisfaction scores from the DIEP flap group are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction mean satisfaction scores.

Discussion

Lack of evidence-based recommendations for BR in older populations may partially explain their low rates of reconstruction and contribute to misconceptions about the operative risks and complications associated with autologous BR in this population. Of the limited number of BRs performed in older patients, implant-based reconstruction is the most common in the United States, despite higher complication rates reported in the elderly patients.^{9,11,12,28

-33} Implant-based reconstruction may be more often performed based on assumptions that older patients will not tolerate the long anesthetic times that complex autologous reconstructions require and that such procedures will place greater physical demands on the patient and involve longer hospital stays than implant-based procedures.^11,33 This might then explain why women older than 65 years constitute only a lamentable 3% of autologous BR when they can benefit equally from such procedures.

Compiled data from multiple hospitals show that autologous reconstruction in the elderly patient has equivalent complications and satisfaction with both the procedure and QOL when compared to the younger cohort.¹⁰ The rates of complications such as flap loss, fat necrosis, donor and breast site morbidity, wound healing, infection, and thromboembolic events (deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) were equally low for autologous reconstruction in older and younger patients and comparable to those found in the literature without age discrimination.^9,17,28 Recent evidence also found no association between age and a higher peri- and postoperative risk in autologous BR and that advanced age alone is not a predictor of poor outcomes after microvascular autologous BR¹⁹ and microvascular flap reconstruction.^34

-37 A review of 6 studies by Walton et al⁹ recommended that autologous reconstruction is a safe option that offered better outcomes as compared to implant-based reconstructions in older women, provided appropriate preoperative assessment was done. By a review of 44 papers, Hamnett et al³⁸ concluded better long-term outcomes with autologous reconstruction in this age-group, which correlated with improved survival and longevity of the reconstruction. A study by Ludolph et al²² was the first to report the equivalent benefit of older patients undergoing autologous BR using the BREAST-Q questionnaire but did not assess age-related subjective outcomes in relation to autologous versus alloplastic BR. With such controversy over what type of BR should be performed for older women, our study aimed to elucidate some of these questions surrounding choosing the optimal BR modality for different age populations.

Our results showed that younger patients had significantly higher satisfaction with their overall outcome compared with older patients (P = .034). However, there were no significant differences with overall breast-related QOL measures between the 2 age cohorts, similar to the results found by other studies.^8,11

-16 There were also no statistically significant differences found in overall patient-reported satisfaction in any of the other BREAST-Q domains between the 2 age groups, a point that has been attested to by other studies the importance of considering BR in all ages. However, when stratifying for both age and type of reconstruction, our study showed differences in patient satisfaction between BR techniques that may be valuable when choosing the better tolerated modality.

In the TE/I group, younger patients compared with older patients had significantly higher breast satisfaction (P = .017) and satisfaction with outcome (P = .010), as well as fewer complications (P = .010). The increased satisfaction may reflect differences in the cohorts as younger women are often more likely to undergo bilateral reconstruction as well as nipple-sparing mastectomy, both of which have been associated with increased satisfaction. However, in this study patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy were not included. Lipa et al²⁸ also described significantly higher rates of complication for implant-based reconstruction in patients aged over 65 years compared to patients of all ages (77% vs 37%), while complication rates for autologous reconstruction were similar between the 2 groups (35.3% vs 33.9%). A national audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction³⁹ found implant-related complications to be higher in the elderly group than in the general population with the most common complication being infection, which required removal. Our results align with these past findings as we did find a significant difference in complication rates between older and younger patients in the TE/I group (P = .010), but this trend was not observed in the DIEP flap group.

In contrast, older patients showed higher satisfaction with DIEP flap reconstruction technique in almost all BREAST-Q domains, although not statistically significant. Previous studies found no significant difference in BREAST-Q satisfaction scores between younger and older patients for autologous BR, although these studies did not discriminate between the types of autologous methods that included the DIEP flap (DIEP), pedicled transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (pTRAM) flap, free TRAM, muscle-sparing free TRAM, and superior inferior epigastric perforator flap.^10,22,40 Interestingly, these previous studies also observed significant differences between the types of autologous BR performed in younger and older patients. A multicenter analysis of 1809 patients revealed that the DIEP flap the most often performed procedure in the younger cohort (37.5%), and pTRAM was the most common in the older cohort (46.6%).¹⁰ Ludolph et al²² also found a significant difference between using a DIEP and ms-TRAM flap with more ms-TRAM flaps performed in older patients (82%) compared to the younger group (59%), and Seidenstuecker et al⁴⁰ presented a rate of 41% of TRAM flaps in older patients as compared to 36% of younger patients. A suggestion has been put forth that these differences between autologous modalities performed in younger versus older patients might be explained by the surgeon’s belief that TRAM-based techniques are the more cautious approach and by the higher rate of previous operative abdominal procedures in the older group.²² The results of our study hope to quell some of these concerns and establish that not only can the DIEP flap BR be successfully used in older patients with fewer complications experienced, but also it may even be the surgery of choice by this population.

Limitations

Limitations of our study include lack of baseline QOL data, low overall response rate, and variable time to follow up from initial surgery. The lack of baseline QOL data can make it difficult to know whether or not difference in preoperative satisfaction played in a role in the observed differences in our study. However, no significant differences in preoperative QOL between implant and autologous BR patients were found in previous studies.^41,42 In future studies, we plan to incorporate preoperative surveys with our prospective studies.

Postoperative follow-up time from initial surgery varied from 4 months to 6 years, since it was ad hoc as to when our research question was developed and executed. Previous outcomes-based studies have demonstrated variability in patient satisfaction depending on timing from completion of surgery. Additionally, certain patient and tumor characteristics were not included in this study such as symmetry procedures, radiation, chemotherapy, comorbidities, and so on, which could have influenced patient experience and, thus, satisfaction with outcome. Finally, the reasons for noncompletion of questionnaires were not specifically analyzed and this could be a potential source of bias in the study.

Conclusions

We have illustrated in our study that patient age influences PROs after different types of postmastectomy BR. When considering BR in older patients, autologous reconstruction techniques, such as the DIEP flap, may provide improved outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction when compared to implant-based reconstruction. The interplay between age and preoperative attitudes and expectations deserves to be explored further to understand the reasons behind these differences in satisfaction. Comprehensive preoperative information should be provided for both autogenous and autologous reconstruction so that patients can make a well-informed decision about their BR surgery.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Pezold

Pusic

Cohen

. Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):930–936.

Frobell

Roos

Roemer

Ranstam

Lohmander

. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial. BMJ. 2013;346:f232.

Selby

Beal

Frank

. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1583–1584.

Donabedian

. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44(suppl 3):166–206.

Williams

. Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(4):509–516.

Alderman

Kuhn

Lowery

Wilkins

. 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(1):7–12.

Flitcroft

Brennan

Spillane

. Patterns and outcomes of breast reconstruction in older women—a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(5):604–615.

Sisco

Johnson

Wang

Rasinski

Rundell

Yao

. The quality-of-life benefits of breast reconstruction do not diminish with age. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(6):663–668.

Walton

Ommen

Audisio

. Breast reconstruction in elderly women breast cancer: a review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2011;37(5):353–357.

10.

Song

Slater

Papsdorf

. Autologous breast reconstruction in women older than 65 years versus women younger than 65 years: a multi-center analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(2):155–163.

11.

Girotto

Schreiber

Nahabedian

. Breast reconstruction in the elderly: preserving excellent quality of life. Ann Plast Surg. 2003;50(6):572–578.

12.

Bowman

Lennox

Clugston

Courtemanche

. Breast reconstruction in older women: should age be an exclusion criterion? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(1):16–22.

13.

Engel

Kerr

Schlesinger-Raab

Sauer

Hölzel

. Quality of life following breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: results of a 5-year prospective study. Breast J. 2004;10(3):223–231.

14.

Al-Ghazal

Fallowfield

Blamey

. Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simple mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(15):1938–1943.

15.

Atisha

Alderman

Lowery

Kuhn

Davis

Wilkins

. 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.

16.

Pope

Ramesh

Gennari

. Pre-operative assessment of cancer in the elderly (PACE): a comprehensive assessment of underlying characteristics of elderly cancer patients prior to elective surgery. Surg Oncol. 2006;15(4):189–197.

17.

Selber

Bergey

Sonnad

Kovach

Serletti

. Free flap breast reconstruction in advanced age: is it safe? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(4):1015–1022.

18.

August

Wilkins

Rea

. Breast reconstruction in older women. Surgery. 1994;115(6):663–668.

19.

Chang

Vaca

DaLio

Festekjian

Crisera

. Assessment of advanced age as a risk factor in microvascular breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;67(3):255–259.

20.

Butz

Lapin

Yao

Tünel

Tekin

. Advanced age is a predictor of 30-day complications after autologous but not implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(2):253e–261e.

21.

De Gournay

Bonnetain

Tixier

Loustalot

Dabakuyo

Cuisenier

. Evaluation of quality of life after breast reconstruction using an autologous latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(6):520–527.

22.

Ludolph

Horch

Harlander

. Is there a rationale for autologous breast reconstruction in older patients? A retrospective single center analysis of quality of life, complications and comorbidities after DIEP or ms-TRAM Flap using the BREAST-Q. Breast J. 2015;21(6):588–595.

23.

Tsoi

Ziolkowski

Thoma

Campbell

O’Reilly

Goeree

. Systematic review on the patient-reported outcomes of tissue-expander/implant vs autologous abdominal tissue breast reconstruction in postmastectomy breast cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(5):1038–1048.

24.

Eltahir

Werners

Dreise

Zeijlmans van Emmichoven

Werker

de Bock

. Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(1):43–50.

25.

Pusic

Klassen

Scott

Klok

Cordeiro

Cano

. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):345–353.

26.

Chen

Cano

Klassen

. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Breast J. 2010;16(6):587–597.

27.

Ward

Potter

Blazeby

; BRAVO Study Steering Committee. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(4):616e–618e; author reply 618e.

28.

Lipa

Youssef

Kuerer

Robb

Chang

. Breast reconstruction in older women: advantages of autogenous tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(3):1110–1121.

29.

De Lorenzi

Rietjens

Soresina

. Immediate breast reconstruction in the elderly: can it be considered an integral step of breast cancer treatment? The experience of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(3):511–515.

30.

Howard-McNatt

Forsberg

Levine

DeFranzo

Marks

David

. Breast cancer reconstruction in the elderly. Am Surg. 2011;77(12):1640–1643.

31.

Albornoz

Bach

Pusic

. 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.

32.

Joslyn

. Patterns of care for immediate and early delayed breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115(5):1289–1296.

33.

Alderman

McMahon

Jr Wilkins

. 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 704-695.

34.

Coskunfirat

Chen

Spanio

Tang

. The safety of microvascular free tissue transfer in the elderly population. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115(3):771–775.

35.

Furnas

Canales

Lineaweaver

Buncke

Alpert

Buncke

. Microsurgical tissue transfer in patients more than 70 years of age. Ann Plast Surg. 1991;26(2):133–139.

36.

Malata

Cooter

Batchelor

Simpson

Browning

Kay

. Microvascular free-tissue transfers in elderly patients: the leeds experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(7):1234–1241.

37.

Ozkan

Ozgentas

Islamoglu

Boztug

Bigat

Dikici

. Experiences with microsurgical tissue transfers in elderly patients. Microsurgery. 2005;25(5):390–395.

38.

Hamnett

Subramanian

. Breast reconstruction in older patients: A literature review of the decision-making process. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(10):1325–1334.

39.

Jeevan

Cromwell

Browne

. Findings of a national comparative audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery in England. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(10):1333–1344.

40.

Seidenstuecker

Munder

Mahajan

Richrath

Behrendt

Andree

. Morbidity of microsurgical breast reconstruction in patients with comorbid conditions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(3):1086–1092.

41.

Winters

Haviland

Balta

. Integration of patient-reported outcome measures with key clinical outcomes after immediate latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction and adjuvant treatment. Br J Surg. 2013;100(2):240–251.

42.

Gopie

Timman

Hilhorst

Hofer

Mureau

Tibben

. The short-term psychological impact of complications after breast reconstruction. Psychooncology. 2013;22(2):290–298.

Outcomes in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap and Implant-Based Reconstruction

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Questionnaire

Statistical Analysis

Results

Patient Demographics

Breast Reconstruction Mean Satisfaction Scores From BREAST-Q Survey

Grouped BRs

Tissue Expander/Implant BR

Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap BR

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References