Loading…
Incidence and Outcomes of Completion Mastectomy following Oncoplastic Reduction: A Case Series
Patients occasionally need completion mastectomy (CM) following oncoplastic reduction for various reasons necessitating definitive reconstructive techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate those patients who required CM following oncoplastic reduction and evaluate indications, technique,...
Saved in:
Published in: | Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 2022-03, Vol.10 (3), p.e4151-e4151 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5192-d00eedc080d25c0dd6acbf67b7c3f767a3fa5c3d44ea4eec25cd00ab3fc540153 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5192-d00eedc080d25c0dd6acbf67b7c3f767a3fa5c3d44ea4eec25cd00ab3fc540153 |
container_end_page | e4151 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | e4151 |
container_title | Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open |
container_volume | 10 |
creator | Baker, Nusaiba F. Brown, Ciara A. Styblo, Toncred M. Carlson, Grant W. Losken, Albert |
description | Patients occasionally need completion mastectomy (CM) following oncoplastic reduction for various reasons necessitating definitive reconstructive techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate those patients who required CM following oncoplastic reduction and evaluate indications, technique, and outcomes.
Patients who underwent a completion mastectomy at some time point following the oncoplastic reduction were identified. Factors that influenced CM and additional reconstruction were analyzed. All statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 (IBM Corp.).
A total of 29 patients (5.3%) underwent CM during the study period with an average follow-up of 3 years since the original procedure. The most common reasons were positive margins (20/29, 69.0%) and recurrence (8/29, 27.6%). Twenty-two had reconstructive procedures (75.9%) and seven did not (24.1%). The patients who underwent CM and reconstruction were significantly younger (49.2 years) than those who had no reconstruction (64.3 years,
= 0.004). The most common type of reconstruction was transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM)/deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap (12/22, 54.5%), followed by latissimus (6/22, 27.3%) and tissue expander (3/22, 13.6%). The complication rate in the CM group was 24% (N = 7/29), which included two seromas (6.9%), followed by infection, fat necrosis, mastectomy skin necrosis, and donor site necrosis (3.4% each).
Completion mastectomy is indicated typically for positive margins or recurrence. Reconstruction is performed more frequently in younger patients, with the TRAM/DIEP flap and latissimus dorsi reconstruction being the most common technique. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004151 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_136868804ae04665b193c0f552951995</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_136868804ae04665b193c0f552951995</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2637585897</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5192-d00eedc080d25c0dd6acbf67b7c3f767a3fa5c3d44ea4eec25cd00ab3fc540153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkV1rFDEYhQdRbKn9ByK59GZqvpPxQihLrQuVBT_AK0M2eWd3amayJjMu_fdm3Fq35iYf7zlPDpyqeknwBcGNenO9-naBjxYngjypTimRTa2E4k-PzifVec63s0prTpR4Xp0wQSUpl9Pq-3JwnYfBAbKDR6tpdLGHjGKLFrHfBRi7OKCPNo_gxtjfoTaGEPfdsEGrwcVdKJPOoU_gJzdL36JLtLAZ0GdIHeQX1bPWhgzn9_tZ9fX91ZfFh_pmdb1cXN7UTpCG1h5jAO-wxp4Kh72X1q1bqdbKsVZJZVlrhWOec7AcwBVRsdg1a53gmAh2Vi0PXB_trdmlrrfpzkTbmT8PMW2MTSVoAEOY1FJrzC1gLqVYk4Y53ApBm5KlmVnvDqzdtO5LKhjGZMMj6OPJ0G3NJv4yWjeM4Rnw-h6Q4s8J8mj6LjsIwQ4Qp2yoZEpooRtVpPwgdSnmnKB9-IZgMzdtStPm_6aL7dVxxAfT317_cfcxjJDyjzDtIZkt2DBuDSaKYtzImmJKMSvUekZT9huVaLQl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2637585897</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incidence and Outcomes of Completion Mastectomy following Oncoplastic Reduction: A Case Series</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>HEAL-Link subscriptions: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</source><creator>Baker, Nusaiba F. ; Brown, Ciara A. ; Styblo, Toncred M. ; Carlson, Grant W. ; Losken, Albert</creator><creatorcontrib>Baker, Nusaiba F. ; Brown, Ciara A. ; Styblo, Toncred M. ; Carlson, Grant W. ; Losken, Albert</creatorcontrib><description>Patients occasionally need completion mastectomy (CM) following oncoplastic reduction for various reasons necessitating definitive reconstructive techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate those patients who required CM following oncoplastic reduction and evaluate indications, technique, and outcomes.
Patients who underwent a completion mastectomy at some time point following the oncoplastic reduction were identified. Factors that influenced CM and additional reconstruction were analyzed. All statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 (IBM Corp.).
A total of 29 patients (5.3%) underwent CM during the study period with an average follow-up of 3 years since the original procedure. The most common reasons were positive margins (20/29, 69.0%) and recurrence (8/29, 27.6%). Twenty-two had reconstructive procedures (75.9%) and seven did not (24.1%). The patients who underwent CM and reconstruction were significantly younger (49.2 years) than those who had no reconstruction (64.3 years,
= 0.004). The most common type of reconstruction was transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM)/deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap (12/22, 54.5%), followed by latissimus (6/22, 27.3%) and tissue expander (3/22, 13.6%). The complication rate in the CM group was 24% (N = 7/29), which included two seromas (6.9%), followed by infection, fat necrosis, mastectomy skin necrosis, and donor site necrosis (3.4% each).
Completion mastectomy is indicated typically for positive margins or recurrence. Reconstruction is performed more frequently in younger patients, with the TRAM/DIEP flap and latissimus dorsi reconstruction being the most common technique.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-7574</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-7574</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004151</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35261841</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</publisher><subject>Breast ; Original</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022-03, Vol.10 (3), p.e4151-e4151</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5192-d00eedc080d25c0dd6acbf67b7c3f767a3fa5c3d44ea4eec25cd00ab3fc540153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5192-d00eedc080d25c0dd6acbf67b7c3f767a3fa5c3d44ea4eec25cd00ab3fc540153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8893305/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8893305/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,882,27905,27906,53772,53774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35261841$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baker, Nusaiba F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Ciara A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Styblo, Toncred M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Grant W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Losken, Albert</creatorcontrib><title>Incidence and Outcomes of Completion Mastectomy following Oncoplastic Reduction: A Case Series</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open</addtitle><description>Patients occasionally need completion mastectomy (CM) following oncoplastic reduction for various reasons necessitating definitive reconstructive techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate those patients who required CM following oncoplastic reduction and evaluate indications, technique, and outcomes.
Patients who underwent a completion mastectomy at some time point following the oncoplastic reduction were identified. Factors that influenced CM and additional reconstruction were analyzed. All statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 (IBM Corp.).
A total of 29 patients (5.3%) underwent CM during the study period with an average follow-up of 3 years since the original procedure. The most common reasons were positive margins (20/29, 69.0%) and recurrence (8/29, 27.6%). Twenty-two had reconstructive procedures (75.9%) and seven did not (24.1%). The patients who underwent CM and reconstruction were significantly younger (49.2 years) than those who had no reconstruction (64.3 years,
= 0.004). The most common type of reconstruction was transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM)/deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap (12/22, 54.5%), followed by latissimus (6/22, 27.3%) and tissue expander (3/22, 13.6%). The complication rate in the CM group was 24% (N = 7/29), which included two seromas (6.9%), followed by infection, fat necrosis, mastectomy skin necrosis, and donor site necrosis (3.4% each).
Completion mastectomy is indicated typically for positive margins or recurrence. Reconstruction is performed more frequently in younger patients, with the TRAM/DIEP flap and latissimus dorsi reconstruction being the most common technique.</description><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Original</subject><issn>2169-7574</issn><issn>2169-7574</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkV1rFDEYhQdRbKn9ByK59GZqvpPxQihLrQuVBT_AK0M2eWd3amayJjMu_fdm3Fq35iYf7zlPDpyqeknwBcGNenO9-naBjxYngjypTimRTa2E4k-PzifVec63s0prTpR4Xp0wQSUpl9Pq-3JwnYfBAbKDR6tpdLGHjGKLFrHfBRi7OKCPNo_gxtjfoTaGEPfdsEGrwcVdKJPOoU_gJzdL36JLtLAZ0GdIHeQX1bPWhgzn9_tZ9fX91ZfFh_pmdb1cXN7UTpCG1h5jAO-wxp4Kh72X1q1bqdbKsVZJZVlrhWOec7AcwBVRsdg1a53gmAh2Vi0PXB_trdmlrrfpzkTbmT8PMW2MTSVoAEOY1FJrzC1gLqVYk4Y53ApBm5KlmVnvDqzdtO5LKhjGZMMj6OPJ0G3NJv4yWjeM4Rnw-h6Q4s8J8mj6LjsIwQ4Qp2yoZEpooRtVpPwgdSnmnKB9-IZgMzdtStPm_6aL7dVxxAfT317_cfcxjJDyjzDtIZkt2DBuDSaKYtzImmJKMSvUekZT9huVaLQl</recordid><startdate>20220302</startdate><enddate>20220302</enddate><creator>Baker, Nusaiba F.</creator><creator>Brown, Ciara A.</creator><creator>Styblo, Toncred M.</creator><creator>Carlson, Grant W.</creator><creator>Losken, Albert</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</general><general>Wolters Kluwer</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220302</creationdate><title>Incidence and Outcomes of Completion Mastectomy following Oncoplastic Reduction: A Case Series</title><author>Baker, Nusaiba F. ; Brown, Ciara A. ; Styblo, Toncred M. ; Carlson, Grant W. ; Losken, Albert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5192-d00eedc080d25c0dd6acbf67b7c3f767a3fa5c3d44ea4eec25cd00ab3fc540153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Original</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baker, Nusaiba F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Ciara A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Styblo, Toncred M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlson, Grant W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Losken, Albert</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baker, Nusaiba F.</au><au>Brown, Ciara A.</au><au>Styblo, Toncred M.</au><au>Carlson, Grant W.</au><au>Losken, Albert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incidence and Outcomes of Completion Mastectomy following Oncoplastic Reduction: A Case Series</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open</addtitle><date>2022-03-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e4151</spage><epage>e4151</epage><pages>e4151-e4151</pages><issn>2169-7574</issn><eissn>2169-7574</eissn><abstract>Patients occasionally need completion mastectomy (CM) following oncoplastic reduction for various reasons necessitating definitive reconstructive techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate those patients who required CM following oncoplastic reduction and evaluate indications, technique, and outcomes.
Patients who underwent a completion mastectomy at some time point following the oncoplastic reduction were identified. Factors that influenced CM and additional reconstruction were analyzed. All statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 (IBM Corp.).
A total of 29 patients (5.3%) underwent CM during the study period with an average follow-up of 3 years since the original procedure. The most common reasons were positive margins (20/29, 69.0%) and recurrence (8/29, 27.6%). Twenty-two had reconstructive procedures (75.9%) and seven did not (24.1%). The patients who underwent CM and reconstruction were significantly younger (49.2 years) than those who had no reconstruction (64.3 years,
= 0.004). The most common type of reconstruction was transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM)/deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap (12/22, 54.5%), followed by latissimus (6/22, 27.3%) and tissue expander (3/22, 13.6%). The complication rate in the CM group was 24% (N = 7/29), which included two seromas (6.9%), followed by infection, fat necrosis, mastectomy skin necrosis, and donor site necrosis (3.4% each).
Completion mastectomy is indicated typically for positive margins or recurrence. Reconstruction is performed more frequently in younger patients, with the TRAM/DIEP flap and latissimus dorsi reconstruction being the most common technique.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</pub><pmid>35261841</pmid><doi>10.1097/GOX.0000000000004151</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2169-7574 |
ispartof | Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022-03, Vol.10 (3), p.e4151-e4151 |
issn | 2169-7574 2169-7574 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_136868804ae04665b193c0f552951995 |
source | Open Access: PubMed Central; HEAL-Link subscriptions: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
subjects | Breast Original |
title | Incidence and Outcomes of Completion Mastectomy following Oncoplastic Reduction: A Case Series |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T12%3A15%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Incidence%20and%20Outcomes%20of%20Completion%20Mastectomy%20following%20Oncoplastic%20Reduction:%20A%20Case%20Series&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery.%20Global%20open&rft.au=Baker,%20Nusaiba%20F.&rft.date=2022-03-02&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e4151&rft.epage=e4151&rft.pages=e4151-e4151&rft.issn=2169-7574&rft.eissn=2169-7574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004151&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2637585897%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5192-d00eedc080d25c0dd6acbf67b7c3f767a3fa5c3d44ea4eec25cd00ab3fc540153%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2637585897&rft_id=info:pmid/35261841&rfr_iscdi=true |