Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Invited Discussion on: Serial Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes of Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Direct-to-Implant Versus Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap

  • Editor’s Invited Discussion
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2020) Plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2020/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2020.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2023

  2. Lee MK, Hwang JW, Park JW, Woo KJ (2023) Serial comparison of patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction: direct-to-implant versus deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Aesthet Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03505-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilkins EG, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Kim JY, Greco RJ, Qi J, Pusic AL (2018) Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: one-year outcomes of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium (MROC) study. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nelson JA, Chu JJ, McCarthy CM, Stern CS, Shamsunder MG, Pusic AL, Mehrara BJ (2022) BREAST-Q REACT: clinical reference values for the BREAST-Q in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction patients. Ann Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11521-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Yoon AP, Qi J, Brown DL, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Erdmann-Sager J, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG (2018) Outcomes of immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction: Results of a multicenter prospective study. Breast. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kebede SN, Martin MS, Baker NF, Saad OA, Losken A (2023) Beyond physical well-being: exploring demographic variances in psychosocial well-being before breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005124

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Barnes LL, Lem M, Patterson A, Segal R, Holland MC, Lentz R, Sbitany H, Piper M (2023) Relationship between BMI and outcomes in microvascular abdomen-based autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Taghioff SM, Slavin BR, Mehra S, Holton T, Singh D (2023) Risk stratification of surgical-site outcomes by BMI and flap type in autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2023.01.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. El Abd R, Prabhu N, Alibrahim A, Burke E, Williams J, Samargandi O (2022) Autologous versus alloplastic reconstruction for patients with obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02664-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Song WJ, Kang SG, Kim EK, Song SY, Lee JS, Lee JH, Jin US (2020) Current status of and trends in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction in Korea. Arch Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2019.01676

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yesantharao PS, Arquette C, Cheesborough JE, Lee GK, Nazerali RS (2023) Paradigm shifts in alloplastic breast reconstruction: a nationwide analysis of direct-to-implant trends. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoque SS, Zhou J, Gartoulla P, Hansen J, Farrell G, Hopper I (2023) Comparing direct-to-implant and two-stage breast reconstruction in the Australian breast device registry. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Johnson AC, Colakoglu S, Chong TW, Mathes DW (2020) Indocyanine green angiography in breast reconstruction: utility, limitations, and search for standardization. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002694

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Odom EB, Schmidt AC, Myckatyn TM, Buck DW (2018) A cross-sectional study of variations in reimbursement for breast reconstruction: is a healthcare disparity on the horizon? Ann Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001228

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Boyd LC, Greenfield JA, Ainapurapu SS et al (2023) The insurance landscape for implant- and autologous-based breast reconstruction in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004818

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Chouairi F, Mets EJ, Gabrick KS, Dinis J, Avraham T, Alperovich M (2020) Impact of insurance payer on type of breast reconstruction performed. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mandelbaum AD, Thompson CK, Attai DJ et al (2020) National trends in immediate breast reconstruction: an analysis of implant-based versus autologous reconstruction after mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08903-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, G5/356 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Avenue, Box 3236, Madison, WI, 53792, USA

    Rose S. Maisner & Ahmed M. Afifi

Authors
  1. Rose S. Maisner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed M. Afifi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed M. Afifi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maisner, R.S., Afifi, A.M. Invited Discussion on: Serial Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes of Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Direct-to-Implant Versus Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap. Aesth Plast Surg 48, 1362–1364 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03691-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03691-7

Search

Navigation