↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Comparison of 2-Year Complication Rates Among Common Techniques for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Surgery, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
61 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
27 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
180 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of 2-Year Complication Rates Among Common Techniques for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction
Published in
JAMA Surgery, October 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1687
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katelyn G. Bennett, Ji Qi, Hyungjin M. Kim, Jennifer B. Hamill, Andrea L. Pusic, Edwin G. Wilkins

Abstract

In breast reconstruction, it is critical for patients and surgeons to have comprehensive information on the relative risks of the available options. However, previous studies that evaluated complications were limited by single-center designs, inadequate follow-up, and confounding. To assess 2-year complication rates across common techniques for postmastectomy reconstruction in a multicenter patient population. This longitudinal, multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted from February 1, 2012, through July 31, 2015, took place at the 11 study sites associated with the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium study. Eligible patients included women 18 years and older presenting for first-time breast reconstruction with at least 2 years of follow-up. Procedures evaluated included direct-to-implant (DTI) technique, expander-implant (EI) technique, latissimus dorsi (LD) flap, pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (pTRAM) flap, free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (fTRAM) flap, deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, and superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap. Postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Development of complications, reoperative complications, and wound infections during 2-year follow-up. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis controlled for variability among centers and for demographic and clinical variables. A total of 2343 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.5 [10.1] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 26.6 [5.7]) met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1525 patients (65.1%) underwent EI reconstruction, with 112 (4.8%) receiving DTI reconstruction, 85 (3.6%) pTRAM flaps, 95 (4.1%) fTRAM flaps, 390 (16.6%) DIEP flaps, 71 (3.0%) LD flaps, and 65 (2.8%) SIEA flaps. Overall, complications were noted in 771 (32.9%), with reoperative complications in 453 (19.3%) and wound infections in 230 (9.8%). Two years postoperatively, patients undergoing any autologous reconstruction type had significantly higher odds of developing any complication compared with those undergoing EI reconstruction (pTRAM flap: odds ratio [OR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.10-3.31; P = .02; fTRAM flap: OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.24-3.40; P = .005; DIEP flap: OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.41-2.76; P < .001; LD flaps: OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.03-3.40; P = .04; SIEA flap: OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 2.32-9.54; P < .001). With the exception of LD flap reconstructions, all flap procedures were associated with higher odds of reoperative complications (pTRAM flap: OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.33-4.64; P = .005; fTRAM flap: OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.73-5.29; P < .001; DIEP flap: OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.87-4.07; P < .001; SIEA flap: OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.24-5.53; P = .01) compared with EI techniques. Of the autologous reconstructions, only patients undergoing DIEP flaps had significantly lower odds of infection compared with those undergoing EI procedures (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.29; P = .006). However, DTI and EI procedures had higher failure rates (EI and DTI techniques, 7.1%; pTRAM flap, 1.2%; fTRAM flap, 2.1%; DIEP flap, 1.3%; LD flap, 2.8%; and SIEA flap, 0%; P < .001). Significant differences were noted across reconstructive procedure types for overall and reoperative complications, which is critically important information for women and surgeons making breast reconstruction decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 11%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Master 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 66 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 44%
Engineering 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 66 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 496. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2024.
All research outputs
#54,134
of 25,980,896 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Surgery
#54
of 5,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,025
of 357,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Surgery
#3
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,980,896 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 357,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.