Postmastectomy Reconstruction of the Previously Augmented Breast: Diagnosis, Staging, Methodology, and Outcome

Although many of the health and safety issues associated with breast augmentation have been thoroughly discussed over the past decade, the literature is remarkably silent regarding postmastectomy reconstruction of the previously augmented breast. A retrospective review of the senior authorʼs reconst...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 2001-04, Vol.107 (5), p.1167-1176
Hauptverfasser: Spear, Scott L, Slack, Charles, Howard, Michael A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1176
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1167
container_title Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)
container_volume 107
creator Spear, Scott L
Slack, Charles
Howard, Michael A
description Although many of the health and safety issues associated with breast augmentation have been thoroughly discussed over the past decade, the literature is remarkably silent regarding postmastectomy reconstruction of the previously augmented breast. A retrospective review of the senior authorʼs reconstructive practice was performed for the years 1983 through March of 1999, revealing 21 women who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction after previous breast augmentation. For purposes of measuring aesthetic results, these 21 patients were matched to a carefully selected control group of 15 patients. They were also compared with other, larger populations, including 777 of the senior authorʼs other breast reconstructions, the breast cancer registry at the Lombardi Cancer Center in Washington, D.C., and several large, published epidemiologic studies.The interval between the previous augmentation and the diagnosis of breast cancer ranged from 9 months to 18 years, with a mean of 9.3 years. None of the previous augmentation implants was ruptured at the time of mastectomy. Of the nine patients with previous subpectoral augmentation, cancer was detected mammographically in five (56 percent), whereas of the 12 patients with previous subglandular augmentation, cancer was first detected mammographically in only three (25 percent). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2). Overall, eight of the study patients’ tumors (38 percent) were first detected mammographically, which is similar to other published reports of breast cancer patients in the general population. Seventy-one percent of the 21 study patients were node-negative, which also compares favorably with other published series.Sixteen of the women with previous augmentation (76 percent) had purely prosthetic reconstructions. Flaps were used in the other five reconstructions (23 percent)three latissimus dorsi flaps (14 percent) and two transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps (9 percent). All five flaps were used in patients who had undergone radiation therapy. Throughout the senior authorʼs entire reconstructive practice history, transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps were more frequently used [282 of 777 nonaugmented reconstructions (36 percent) ], whereas latissimus dorsi flaps were less frequently used [17 of 777 nonaugmented reconstructions (2.2 percent)] (p < 0.001).The cosmetic results of the breast reconstructions in the previously augmented study group were gen
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00006534-200104150-00011
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70892240</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70892240</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3841-a3e2723075676632f93995b33063825a3a72d689d8e8f2bf82c8edfd759625c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUlvFDEQRi1ERIbAX0CWkDhNEy_tjVsIqxSUiOVsedzVPQ1uO9huovn36TBDcsKXkqz3ValeIYQpeU2JUadkeVLwtmGEUNJSQZrlh9JHaEUFM03LWvYYrQjhrKFEsGP0tJSfC6G4FE_QMaVccSHUCsWrVOrkSgVf07TDX8GnWGqefR1TxKnHdQv4KsOfMc0l7PDZPEwQK3T4bYYl9wa_G90QUxnLGn-rbhjjsMZfoG5Tl0IadmvsYocv5-rTBM_QUe9CgeeHeoJ-fHj__fxTc3H58fP52UXjuW5p4zgwxThRQiopOesNN0ZsOCeSayYcd4p1UptOg-7ZptfMa-j6TgkjmfCcn6BX-77XOf2eoVQ7jcVDCC7CsodVRBvGWrKAeg_6nErJ0NvrPE4u7ywl9s61_efa3ru2f10v0ReHGfNmgu4heJC7AC8PgCvehT676MdyzxlBpL6j2j11k0KFXH6F-Qay3YILdWv_d2l-C1mMlbM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70892240</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Postmastectomy Reconstruction of the Previously Augmented Breast: Diagnosis, Staging, Methodology, and Outcome</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Spear, Scott L ; Slack, Charles ; Howard, Michael A</creator><creatorcontrib>Spear, Scott L ; Slack, Charles ; Howard, Michael A</creatorcontrib><description>Although many of the health and safety issues associated with breast augmentation have been thoroughly discussed over the past decade, the literature is remarkably silent regarding postmastectomy reconstruction of the previously augmented breast. A retrospective review of the senior authorʼs reconstructive practice was performed for the years 1983 through March of 1999, revealing 21 women who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction after previous breast augmentation. For purposes of measuring aesthetic results, these 21 patients were matched to a carefully selected control group of 15 patients. They were also compared with other, larger populations, including 777 of the senior authorʼs other breast reconstructions, the breast cancer registry at the Lombardi Cancer Center in Washington, D.C., and several large, published epidemiologic studies.The interval between the previous augmentation and the diagnosis of breast cancer ranged from 9 months to 18 years, with a mean of 9.3 years. None of the previous augmentation implants was ruptured at the time of mastectomy. Of the nine patients with previous subpectoral augmentation, cancer was detected mammographically in five (56 percent), whereas of the 12 patients with previous subglandular augmentation, cancer was first detected mammographically in only three (25 percent). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2). Overall, eight of the study patients’ tumors (38 percent) were first detected mammographically, which is similar to other published reports of breast cancer patients in the general population. Seventy-one percent of the 21 study patients were node-negative, which also compares favorably with other published series.Sixteen of the women with previous augmentation (76 percent) had purely prosthetic reconstructions. Flaps were used in the other five reconstructions (23 percent)three latissimus dorsi flaps (14 percent) and two transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps (9 percent). All five flaps were used in patients who had undergone radiation therapy. Throughout the senior authorʼs entire reconstructive practice history, transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps were more frequently used [282 of 777 nonaugmented reconstructions (36 percent) ], whereas latissimus dorsi flaps were less frequently used [17 of 777 nonaugmented reconstructions (2.2 percent)] (p &lt; 0.001).The cosmetic results of the breast reconstructions in the previously augmented study group were generally good-to-excellent, with a mean score by blinded observers of 3.35 of a possible 4.0. These results were comparable to or better than those in the matched controls, who scored a mean of 3.0. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1071167, 2001.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-1052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1529-4242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200104150-00011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11373557</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: American Society of Plastic Surgeons</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Implants ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Case-Control Studies ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Mammaplasty ; Mastectomy ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland ; Surgical Flaps ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2001-04, Vol.107 (5), p.1167-1176</ispartof><rights>2001American Society of Plastic Surgeons</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3841-a3e2723075676632f93995b33063825a3a72d689d8e8f2bf82c8edfd759625c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3841-a3e2723075676632f93995b33063825a3a72d689d8e8f2bf82c8edfd759625c33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=950687$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11373557$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Spear, Scott L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slack, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howard, Michael A</creatorcontrib><title>Postmastectomy Reconstruction of the Previously Augmented Breast: Diagnosis, Staging, Methodology, and Outcome</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><description>Although many of the health and safety issues associated with breast augmentation have been thoroughly discussed over the past decade, the literature is remarkably silent regarding postmastectomy reconstruction of the previously augmented breast. A retrospective review of the senior authorʼs reconstructive practice was performed for the years 1983 through March of 1999, revealing 21 women who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction after previous breast augmentation. For purposes of measuring aesthetic results, these 21 patients were matched to a carefully selected control group of 15 patients. They were also compared with other, larger populations, including 777 of the senior authorʼs other breast reconstructions, the breast cancer registry at the Lombardi Cancer Center in Washington, D.C., and several large, published epidemiologic studies.The interval between the previous augmentation and the diagnosis of breast cancer ranged from 9 months to 18 years, with a mean of 9.3 years. None of the previous augmentation implants was ruptured at the time of mastectomy. Of the nine patients with previous subpectoral augmentation, cancer was detected mammographically in five (56 percent), whereas of the 12 patients with previous subglandular augmentation, cancer was first detected mammographically in only three (25 percent). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2). Overall, eight of the study patients’ tumors (38 percent) were first detected mammographically, which is similar to other published reports of breast cancer patients in the general population. Seventy-one percent of the 21 study patients were node-negative, which also compares favorably with other published series.Sixteen of the women with previous augmentation (76 percent) had purely prosthetic reconstructions. Flaps were used in the other five reconstructions (23 percent)three latissimus dorsi flaps (14 percent) and two transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps (9 percent). All five flaps were used in patients who had undergone radiation therapy. Throughout the senior authorʼs entire reconstructive practice history, transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps were more frequently used [282 of 777 nonaugmented reconstructions (36 percent) ], whereas latissimus dorsi flaps were less frequently used [17 of 777 nonaugmented reconstructions (2.2 percent)] (p &lt; 0.001).The cosmetic results of the breast reconstructions in the previously augmented study group were generally good-to-excellent, with a mean score by blinded observers of 3.35 of a possible 4.0. These results were comparable to or better than those in the matched controls, who scored a mean of 3.0. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1071167, 2001.)</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Implants</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammaplasty</subject><subject>Mastectomy</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland</subject><subject>Surgical Flaps</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0032-1052</issn><issn>1529-4242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUlvFDEQRi1ERIbAX0CWkDhNEy_tjVsIqxSUiOVsedzVPQ1uO9huovn36TBDcsKXkqz3ValeIYQpeU2JUadkeVLwtmGEUNJSQZrlh9JHaEUFM03LWvYYrQjhrKFEsGP0tJSfC6G4FE_QMaVccSHUCsWrVOrkSgVf07TDX8GnWGqefR1TxKnHdQv4KsOfMc0l7PDZPEwQK3T4bYYl9wa_G90QUxnLGn-rbhjjsMZfoG5Tl0IadmvsYocv5-rTBM_QUe9CgeeHeoJ-fHj__fxTc3H58fP52UXjuW5p4zgwxThRQiopOesNN0ZsOCeSayYcd4p1UptOg-7ZptfMa-j6TgkjmfCcn6BX-77XOf2eoVQ7jcVDCC7CsodVRBvGWrKAeg_6nErJ0NvrPE4u7ywl9s61_efa3ru2f10v0ReHGfNmgu4heJC7AC8PgCvehT676MdyzxlBpL6j2j11k0KFXH6F-Qay3YILdWv_d2l-C1mMlbM</recordid><startdate>20010415</startdate><enddate>20010415</enddate><creator>Spear, Scott L</creator><creator>Slack, Charles</creator><creator>Howard, Michael A</creator><general>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>20010415</creationdate><title>Postmastectomy Reconstruction of the Previously Augmented Breast: Diagnosis, Staging, Methodology, and Outcome</title><author>Spear, Scott L ; Slack, Charles ; Howard, Michael A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3841-a3e2723075676632f93995b33063825a3a72d689d8e8f2bf82c8edfd759625c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Implants</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammaplasty</topic><topic>Mastectomy</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland</topic><topic>Surgical Flaps</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Spear, Scott L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slack, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howard, Michael A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><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>Spear, Scott L</au><au>Slack, Charles</au><au>Howard, Michael A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Postmastectomy Reconstruction of the Previously Augmented Breast: Diagnosis, Staging, Methodology, and Outcome</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><date>2001-04-15</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>107</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1167</spage><epage>1176</epage><pages>1167-1176</pages><issn>0032-1052</issn><eissn>1529-4242</eissn><abstract>Although many of the health and safety issues associated with breast augmentation have been thoroughly discussed over the past decade, the literature is remarkably silent regarding postmastectomy reconstruction of the previously augmented breast. A retrospective review of the senior authorʼs reconstructive practice was performed for the years 1983 through March of 1999, revealing 21 women who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction after previous breast augmentation. For purposes of measuring aesthetic results, these 21 patients were matched to a carefully selected control group of 15 patients. They were also compared with other, larger populations, including 777 of the senior authorʼs other breast reconstructions, the breast cancer registry at the Lombardi Cancer Center in Washington, D.C., and several large, published epidemiologic studies.The interval between the previous augmentation and the diagnosis of breast cancer ranged from 9 months to 18 years, with a mean of 9.3 years. None of the previous augmentation implants was ruptured at the time of mastectomy. Of the nine patients with previous subpectoral augmentation, cancer was detected mammographically in five (56 percent), whereas of the 12 patients with previous subglandular augmentation, cancer was first detected mammographically in only three (25 percent). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2). Overall, eight of the study patients’ tumors (38 percent) were first detected mammographically, which is similar to other published reports of breast cancer patients in the general population. Seventy-one percent of the 21 study patients were node-negative, which also compares favorably with other published series.Sixteen of the women with previous augmentation (76 percent) had purely prosthetic reconstructions. Flaps were used in the other five reconstructions (23 percent)three latissimus dorsi flaps (14 percent) and two transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps (9 percent). All five flaps were used in patients who had undergone radiation therapy. Throughout the senior authorʼs entire reconstructive practice history, transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps were more frequently used [282 of 777 nonaugmented reconstructions (36 percent) ], whereas latissimus dorsi flaps were less frequently used [17 of 777 nonaugmented reconstructions (2.2 percent)] (p &lt; 0.001).The cosmetic results of the breast reconstructions in the previously augmented study group were generally good-to-excellent, with a mean score by blinded observers of 3.35 of a possible 4.0. These results were comparable to or better than those in the matched controls, who scored a mean of 3.0. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1071167, 2001.)</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</pub><pmid>11373557</pmid><doi>10.1097/00006534-200104150-00011</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-1052
ispartof Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2001-04, Vol.107 (5), p.1167-1176
issn 0032-1052
1529-4242
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70892240
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Biological and medical sciences
Breast Implants
Breast Neoplasms - surgery
Case-Control Studies
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Mammaplasty
Mastectomy
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Surgery of the genital tract and mammary gland
Surgical Flaps
Time Factors
title Postmastectomy Reconstruction of the Previously Augmented Breast: Diagnosis, Staging, Methodology, and Outcome
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T23%3A21%3A19IST&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=Postmastectomy%20Reconstruction%20of%20the%20Previously%20Augmented%20Breast:%20Diagnosis,%20Staging,%20Methodology,%20and%20Outcome&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery%20(1963)&rft.au=Spear,%20Scott%20L&rft.date=2001-04-15&rft.volume=107&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1167&rft.epage=1176&rft.pages=1167-1176&rft.issn=0032-1052&rft.eissn=1529-4242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00006534-200104150-00011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70892240%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=70892240&rft_id=info:pmid/11373557&rfr_iscdi=true