Novel single‐centre experience – evaluation of outcomes post‐implementation of a coordinated combined breast reconstruction service

• Published in: ANZ journal of surgery 2024-02, Vol.94 (1-2), p.156-162
• Main Authors: Armanios, Alexander S., Nyandoro, Munyaradzi G., Jayachitra, Nisha, Hamza, Saud
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: autologous; Breast; Breast Neoplasms - surgery; breast reconstruction; Breast surgery; Female; Humans; Intervention; low‐cost intervention; Mammaplasty - methods; mastectomy; Mastectomy - methods; Medical personnel; Productivity; Reconstructive surgery; Retrospective Studies; Statistical analysis; Surgeons; Surgical Flaps; Surgical outcomes; waitlist
• ISSN: 1445-1433; 1445-2197; 1445-2197
• DOI: 10.1111/ans.18783

Background Autologous breast reconstruction services are logistically complex and challenging to implement but have better outcomes than implants. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of implementing a coordinated, low‐cost combined breast reconstruction service (0.8 FTE nurse liaison, 0.25 FTE plastic surgeon, two dedicated breast surgeons 0.05 FTE each and protected weekly all‐day oncoplastic theatre) on unit productivity and efficiency in reducing wait times for immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all patients who underwent immediate autologous breast reconstruction at Fiona Stanley Hospital between two study periods, pre‐intervention – February 2016 to June 2019 and post‐intervention – November 2022. Data were analysed using SPSS v.27. Results One hundred twenty‐seven participants were included, with 49% (n = 62) in the post‐intervention group. Most procedures performed were therapeutic (n = 108, 85%). DIEP was the most common flap (84%), and the mean BMI was 26.9 (SD ± 4.2). There was a statistically significant increase in the number of high‐risk gene carriers' prophylactic cases and bilateral cases performed post‐intervention (5% to 26%, P = 0.001) and (29% to 55%, P = 0.003), respectively. Time to surgery on the waitlist did not significantly change after the intervention (therapeutic group: 3.1 to 3.5 weeks, P = 0.821; prophylactic group: 55.0 to 61.1 weeks, P = 1.000). Overall, there was a marked increase in the overall productivity of the breast service unit in terms of mastectomies, total reconstructions, and autologous reconstructions performed. Conclusions This single‐centre experience showed that implementing a coordinated service significantly increased the unit's productivity. This low‐cost intervention can be applied to other healthcare settings. This study implemented a coordinated and combined breast reconstruction service, significantly increasing the unit's productivity. This low‐cost intervention can be applied to other healthcare settings.