Incidence of Surgical-Site Infection Is Not Affected by Method of Immediate Breast Reconstruction

To date, few large-scale studies have reported the incidence of surgical-site infection in women undergoing mastectomy with respect to the various methods of immediate breast reconstruction. This study assessed whether the reconstruction method was associated with the risk of surgical-site infection...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 2013-07, Vol.132 (1), p.20e-29e
Hauptverfasser: Costa, Melinda A., Rommer, Elizabeth, Peric, Mirna, Nguyen, T. JoAnna, Shahabi, Ahva, Davis, Gabrielle B., Vidar, Evan N., Chan, Linda S., Wong, Alex K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 29e
container_issue 1
container_start_page 20e
container_title Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)
container_volume 132
creator Costa, Melinda A.
Rommer, Elizabeth
Peric, Mirna
Nguyen, T. JoAnna
Shahabi, Ahva
Davis, Gabrielle B.
Vidar, Evan N.
Chan, Linda S.
Wong, Alex K.
description To date, few large-scale studies have reported the incidence of surgical-site infection in women undergoing mastectomy with respect to the various methods of immediate breast reconstruction. This study assessed whether the reconstruction method was associated with the risk of surgical-site infection in these patients. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, 9230 female patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction from 2005 to 2009 were identified. Reconstruction was classified as autologous, prosthetic, or hybrid. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days of operation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to derive the unadjusted and adjusted risk of surgical-site infection according to reconstruction method. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was 3.53 percent (95 percent CI, 3.15 to 3.94 percent), with individual rates of 3.33 percent (95 percent CI, 2.93 to 3.76 percent) for prosthetic reconstruction, 4.88 percent (95 percent CI, 3.48 to 6.11 percent) for autologous reconstruction, and 2.19 percent (95 percent CI, 0.88 to 4.45 percent) for hybrid reconstruction. The adjusted odds ratio of surgical-site infection was 1.14 (95 percent CI, 0.83 to 1.58; p = 0.42) for autologous versus prosthetic methods and 0.59 (95 percent CI, 0.27 to 1.27; p = 0.18) for hybrid versus prosthetic methods. Although the risk of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing immediate reconstruction is highest with autologous and lowest with hybrid methods of reconstruction, the difference in infection risk was not statistically significant after adjustment for confounding factors. Thus, all methods of reconstruction are viable options with regard to risk for surgical-site infection. Risk, III.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318290f87e
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1372702555</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1372702555</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3528-730df2bbdd2cf7f3afde767fcf5591bf22d1015c414dcf17413f084070c61d363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE9v1DAQxS1ERZeWb4CQj1xSZuw4To6l4k-kQqsunC3HHrOBbFxsR1W_PVlaQGIuI43e783MY-wlwhlCp99c32zPYACUJLEVHYRW0xO2QSW6qha1eMo2AFJUCEocs-c5fwdALRv1jB0L2ULTKdww289u9DQ74jHw7ZK-jc5O1XYsxPs5kCtjnHmf-edY-Hk4DMjz4Z5_orKL_gD1-z350a7A20Q2F35DLs65pOU3fMqOgp0yvXjsJ-zr-3dfLj5Wl1cf-ovzy8pJJdpKS_BBDIP3wgUdpA2edKODC0p1OAQhPAIqV2PtXUBdowzQ1qDBNehlI0_Y6wff2xR_LpSL2Y_Z0TTZmeKSDUotNAil1CqtH6QuxZwTBXObxr1N9wbBHMI1a7jm_3BX7NXjhmVYX_4L_Unzn-9dnAql_GNa7iiZHdmp7Ays1ShZV2L1Xe8GqA6jVv4CLAyF5A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1372702555</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incidence of Surgical-Site Infection Is Not Affected by Method of Immediate Breast Reconstruction</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Costa, Melinda A. ; Rommer, Elizabeth ; Peric, Mirna ; Nguyen, T. JoAnna ; Shahabi, Ahva ; Davis, Gabrielle B. ; Vidar, Evan N. ; Chan, Linda S. ; Wong, Alex K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Costa, Melinda A. ; Rommer, Elizabeth ; Peric, Mirna ; Nguyen, T. JoAnna ; Shahabi, Ahva ; Davis, Gabrielle B. ; Vidar, Evan N. ; Chan, Linda S. ; Wong, Alex K.</creatorcontrib><description>To date, few large-scale studies have reported the incidence of surgical-site infection in women undergoing mastectomy with respect to the various methods of immediate breast reconstruction. This study assessed whether the reconstruction method was associated with the risk of surgical-site infection in these patients. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, 9230 female patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction from 2005 to 2009 were identified. Reconstruction was classified as autologous, prosthetic, or hybrid. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days of operation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to derive the unadjusted and adjusted risk of surgical-site infection according to reconstruction method. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was 3.53 percent (95 percent CI, 3.15 to 3.94 percent), with individual rates of 3.33 percent (95 percent CI, 2.93 to 3.76 percent) for prosthetic reconstruction, 4.88 percent (95 percent CI, 3.48 to 6.11 percent) for autologous reconstruction, and 2.19 percent (95 percent CI, 0.88 to 4.45 percent) for hybrid reconstruction. The adjusted odds ratio of surgical-site infection was 1.14 (95 percent CI, 0.83 to 1.58; p = 0.42) for autologous versus prosthetic methods and 0.59 (95 percent CI, 0.27 to 1.27; p = 0.18) for hybrid versus prosthetic methods. Although the risk of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing immediate reconstruction is highest with autologous and lowest with hybrid methods of reconstruction, the difference in infection risk was not statistically significant after adjustment for confounding factors. Thus, all methods of reconstruction are viable options with regard to risk for surgical-site infection. Risk, III.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-1052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1529-4242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318290f87e</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23806951</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society of Plastic Surgeons</publisher><subject>Breast Implants ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Incidence ; Mammaplasty - adverse effects ; Mammaplasty - methods ; Mastectomy ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Risk Factors ; Surgical Wound Infection - epidemiology ; Surgical Wound Infection - etiology ; Time Factors ; United States - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2013-07, Vol.132 (1), p.20e-29e</ispartof><rights>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3528-730df2bbdd2cf7f3afde767fcf5591bf22d1015c414dcf17413f084070c61d363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3528-730df2bbdd2cf7f3afde767fcf5591bf22d1015c414dcf17413f084070c61d363</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23806951$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Costa, Melinda A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rommer, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peric, Mirna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, T. JoAnna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahabi, Ahva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Gabrielle B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vidar, Evan N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Linda S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Alex K.</creatorcontrib><title>Incidence of Surgical-Site Infection Is Not Affected by Method of Immediate Breast Reconstruction</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><description>To date, few large-scale studies have reported the incidence of surgical-site infection in women undergoing mastectomy with respect to the various methods of immediate breast reconstruction. This study assessed whether the reconstruction method was associated with the risk of surgical-site infection in these patients. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, 9230 female patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction from 2005 to 2009 were identified. Reconstruction was classified as autologous, prosthetic, or hybrid. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days of operation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to derive the unadjusted and adjusted risk of surgical-site infection according to reconstruction method. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was 3.53 percent (95 percent CI, 3.15 to 3.94 percent), with individual rates of 3.33 percent (95 percent CI, 2.93 to 3.76 percent) for prosthetic reconstruction, 4.88 percent (95 percent CI, 3.48 to 6.11 percent) for autologous reconstruction, and 2.19 percent (95 percent CI, 0.88 to 4.45 percent) for hybrid reconstruction. The adjusted odds ratio of surgical-site infection was 1.14 (95 percent CI, 0.83 to 1.58; p = 0.42) for autologous versus prosthetic methods and 0.59 (95 percent CI, 0.27 to 1.27; p = 0.18) for hybrid versus prosthetic methods. Although the risk of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing immediate reconstruction is highest with autologous and lowest with hybrid methods of reconstruction, the difference in infection risk was not statistically significant after adjustment for confounding factors. Thus, all methods of reconstruction are viable options with regard to risk for surgical-site infection. Risk, III.</description><subject>Breast Implants</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Mammaplasty - adverse effects</subject><subject>Mammaplasty - methods</subject><subject>Mastectomy</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - epidemiology</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - etiology</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><issn>0032-1052</issn><issn>1529-4242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE9v1DAQxS1ERZeWb4CQj1xSZuw4To6l4k-kQqsunC3HHrOBbFxsR1W_PVlaQGIuI43e783MY-wlwhlCp99c32zPYACUJLEVHYRW0xO2QSW6qha1eMo2AFJUCEocs-c5fwdALRv1jB0L2ULTKdww289u9DQ74jHw7ZK-jc5O1XYsxPs5kCtjnHmf-edY-Hk4DMjz4Z5_orKL_gD1-z350a7A20Q2F35DLs65pOU3fMqOgp0yvXjsJ-zr-3dfLj5Wl1cf-ovzy8pJJdpKS_BBDIP3wgUdpA2edKODC0p1OAQhPAIqV2PtXUBdowzQ1qDBNehlI0_Y6wff2xR_LpSL2Y_Z0TTZmeKSDUotNAil1CqtH6QuxZwTBXObxr1N9wbBHMI1a7jm_3BX7NXjhmVYX_4L_Unzn-9dnAql_GNa7iiZHdmp7Ays1ShZV2L1Xe8GqA6jVv4CLAyF5A</recordid><startdate>20130701</startdate><enddate>20130701</enddate><creator>Costa, Melinda A.</creator><creator>Rommer, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Peric, Mirna</creator><creator>Nguyen, T. JoAnna</creator><creator>Shahabi, Ahva</creator><creator>Davis, Gabrielle B.</creator><creator>Vidar, Evan N.</creator><creator>Chan, Linda S.</creator><creator>Wong, Alex K.</creator><general>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130701</creationdate><title>Incidence of Surgical-Site Infection Is Not Affected by Method of Immediate Breast Reconstruction</title><author>Costa, Melinda A. ; Rommer, Elizabeth ; Peric, Mirna ; Nguyen, T. JoAnna ; Shahabi, Ahva ; Davis, Gabrielle B. ; Vidar, Evan N. ; Chan, Linda S. ; Wong, Alex K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3528-730df2bbdd2cf7f3afde767fcf5591bf22d1015c414dcf17413f084070c61d363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Breast Implants</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Mammaplasty - adverse effects</topic><topic>Mammaplasty - methods</topic><topic>Mastectomy</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - epidemiology</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - etiology</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Costa, Melinda A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rommer, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peric, Mirna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, T. JoAnna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahabi, Ahva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Gabrielle B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vidar, Evan N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Linda S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Alex K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Costa, Melinda A.</au><au>Rommer, Elizabeth</au><au>Peric, Mirna</au><au>Nguyen, T. JoAnna</au><au>Shahabi, Ahva</au><au>Davis, Gabrielle B.</au><au>Vidar, Evan N.</au><au>Chan, Linda S.</au><au>Wong, Alex K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incidence of Surgical-Site Infection Is Not Affected by Method of Immediate Breast Reconstruction</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><date>2013-07-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>132</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>20e</spage><epage>29e</epage><pages>20e-29e</pages><issn>0032-1052</issn><eissn>1529-4242</eissn><abstract>To date, few large-scale studies have reported the incidence of surgical-site infection in women undergoing mastectomy with respect to the various methods of immediate breast reconstruction. This study assessed whether the reconstruction method was associated with the risk of surgical-site infection in these patients. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, 9230 female patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction from 2005 to 2009 were identified. Reconstruction was classified as autologous, prosthetic, or hybrid. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days of operation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to derive the unadjusted and adjusted risk of surgical-site infection according to reconstruction method. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was 3.53 percent (95 percent CI, 3.15 to 3.94 percent), with individual rates of 3.33 percent (95 percent CI, 2.93 to 3.76 percent) for prosthetic reconstruction, 4.88 percent (95 percent CI, 3.48 to 6.11 percent) for autologous reconstruction, and 2.19 percent (95 percent CI, 0.88 to 4.45 percent) for hybrid reconstruction. The adjusted odds ratio of surgical-site infection was 1.14 (95 percent CI, 0.83 to 1.58; p = 0.42) for autologous versus prosthetic methods and 0.59 (95 percent CI, 0.27 to 1.27; p = 0.18) for hybrid versus prosthetic methods. Although the risk of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing immediate reconstruction is highest with autologous and lowest with hybrid methods of reconstruction, the difference in infection risk was not statistically significant after adjustment for confounding factors. Thus, all methods of reconstruction are viable options with regard to risk for surgical-site infection. Risk, III.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</pub><pmid>23806951</pmid><doi>10.1097/PRS.0b013e318290f87e</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-1052
ispartof Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2013-07, Vol.132 (1), p.20e-29e
issn 0032-1052
1529-4242
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1372702555
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Breast Implants
Breast Neoplasms - surgery
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Incidence
Mammaplasty - adverse effects
Mammaplasty - methods
Mastectomy
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment - methods
Risk Factors
Surgical Wound Infection - epidemiology
Surgical Wound Infection - etiology
Time Factors
United States - epidemiology
title Incidence of Surgical-Site Infection Is Not Affected by Method of Immediate Breast Reconstruction
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T21%3A49%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Incidence%20of%20Surgical-Site%20Infection%20Is%20Not%20Affected%20by%20Method%20of%20Immediate%20Breast%20Reconstruction&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery%20(1963)&rft.au=Costa,%20Melinda%20A.&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=132&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=20e&rft.epage=29e&rft.pages=20e-29e&rft.issn=0032-1052&rft.eissn=1529-4242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318290f87e&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1372702555%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1372702555&rft_id=info:pmid/23806951&rfr_iscdi=true