Breast Implant Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Evidence-Based Consensus Conference Statement From The American Association of Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of high-quality evidence, there is a need to provide guidelines and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The purpose of this expert consensus conference was to evaluate the existing evidence regarding the diagnosis, and management of BIA-ALCL caused by textured implants. The aim is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the management and prevention of BIA-ALCL. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, supplemented by manual searches of relevant English language articles and "related articles" sections. Studies focusing on breast surgery and lymphoma associated with breast implants were included for analysis. Meta-analyses were performed and reviewed by experts selected by the American Association of Plastic Surgeons by a Delphi consensus method. RESULTS: 840 articles between January 2011 and January 2023 were initially identified and screened. Full-text of 188 articles were assessed. An additional 43 articles were excluded for focus, and 145 articles were included in the synthesis of results, with 105 of them being case reports or case series. The analysis encompassed a comprehensive examination of the selected articles to determine the incidence, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnostic approaches, and treatment modalities related to BIA-ALCL. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons should be aware of the elevated risks by surface type, implement appropriate patient surveillance, and follow the recommendations outlined in this statement to ensure patient safety and optimize outcomes. Ongoing research on pathogenesis, genetic drivers, and preventative and prophylactic measures is crucial for improving patient care.

Textured versus Smooth Tissue Expanders: A Comparison of Complications in 3526 Breast Reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma has led to a shift away from textured breast devices. A few small studies have compared the complication rates of textured and smooth tissue expanders (TEs). The aim of this study was to compare complication profiles in patients undergoing two-stage postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either textured or smooth TEs. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of female patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with textured or smooth TEs from 2018 to 2020 at their institution. Rates of seroma, infection/cellulitis, malposition/rotation, exposure, and TE loss were analyzed in the overall cohort and subgroups undergoing prepectoral and subpectoral TE placement. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to decrease the effects of confounders comparing textured and smooth TEs. RESULTS: The authors analyzed 3526 TEs (1456 textured and 2070 smooth). More frequent use of acellular dermal matrix, SPY angiography, and prepectoral TE placement was noted in the smooth TE cohort ( P < 0.001). Univariate analysis suggested higher rates of infection/cellulitis, malposition/rotation, and exposure in smooth TEs (all P < 0.01). Rates of TE loss did not differ. After propensity matching, no differences were noted in infection or TE loss. Prepectoral smooth expanders had increased rates of malposition/rotation. CONCLUSIONS: TE surface type did not affect rates of TE loss, although increased rates of expander malposition were noted in the smooth prepectoral cohort. Further research is needed to examine breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma risk with temporary textured TE exposure to improve decision-making. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCW: Therapeutic, III.

Biologic versus synthetic prosthesis for chest wall reconstruction: a matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes between biologic and synthetic reconstructions after chest wall resection in a matched cohort. METHODS: All patients who underwent reconstruction after full-thickness chest wall resection from 2000 to 2022 were reviewed and stratified by prosthesis type (biologic or synthetic). Biologic prostheses were of biologic origin or were fully absorbable and incorporable. Integer matching was performed to reduce confounding. The study end point was surgical site complications requiring reoperation. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify associated risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 438 patients underwent prosthetic chest wall reconstruction (unmatched: biologic, n = 49; synthetic, n = 389; matched: biologic, n = 46; synthetic, n = 46). After matching, the median (interquartile range) defect size was 83 cm2 (50-142) for the biologic group and 90 cm2 (48-146) for the synthetic group (P = 0.97). Myocutaneous flaps were used in 33% of biologic reconstructions (n = 15) and 33% of synthetic reconstructions (n = 15) in the matched cohort (P = 0.99). The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic reconstructions in the unmatched (3 [6%] vs 29 [7%]; P = 0.99) and matched (2 [4%] vs 4 [9%]; P = 0.68) cohorts. On the multivariable analysis, operative time [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.01; P = 0.006] and operative blood loss (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI, 1.00-1.00]; P = 0.012) were associated with higher rates of surgical site complications requiring reoperation; microvascular free flaps (aOR = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.00-0.42; P = 0.024) were associated with lower rates. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic prostheses in chest wall reconstructions.

The contribution of microvascular free flaps and pedicled flaps to successful chest wall surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Pedicled flaps (PFs) have historically served as the preferred option for reconstruction of large chest wall defects. More recently, the indications for microvascular-free flaps (MVFFs) have increased, particularly for defects in which PFs are inadequate or unavailable. We sought to compare oncologic and surgical outcomes between MVFFs and PFs in reconstructions of full-thickness chest wall defects. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent chest wall resection at our institution from 2000 to 2022. Patients were stratified by flap reconstruction. End points were defect size, rate of complete resection, rate of local recurrence, and postoperative outcomes. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with complications at 30 days. RESULTS: In total, 536 patients underwent chest wall resection, of whom 133 had flap reconstruction (MVFF, n = 28; PF, n = 105). The median (interquartile range) covered defect size was 172 cm2 (100-216 cm2) for patients receiving MVFF versus 109 cm2 (75-148 cm2) for patients receiving PF (P = .004). The rate of R0 resection was high in both groups (MVFF, 93% [n = 26]; PF, 86% [n = 90]; P = .5). The rate of local recurrence was 4% in MVFF patients (n = 1) versus 12% in PF patients (n = 13, P = .3). Postoperative complications were not statistically different between groups (odds ratio for PF, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-5.14]; P = .6). Operative time >400 minutes was associated with 30-day complications (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-9.93; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MVFFs had larger defects, a high rate of complete resection, and a low rate of local recurrence. MVFFs are a valid option for chest wall reconstructions.

Patient Registry and Outcomes for Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Etiology and Epidemiology (PROFILE): Updated Report 2012-2020.

BACKGROUND: In January of 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a safety communication regarding the potential association between breast implants and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL). In 2012, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, The Plastic Surgery Foundation, and the Food and Drug Administration signed a cooperative research and development agreement to develop the Patient Registry and Outcomes for Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma Etiology and Epidemiology (PROFILE) patient registry. METHOD: This is an updated report of registry findings. From August of 2012 to August of 2020, 330 unique, suspected, or confirmed cases of breast implant-associated (BIA) ALCL in the United States were reported to PROFILE, including 144 cases newly reported since the 2018 publication. RESULTS: Median time from implantation of any device to BIA-ALCL diagnosis was 11 years (range, 2 to 44 years). At the time of presentation, 91% of cases had local symptoms and 9% had concurrent systemic symptoms. The most common local symptom was seroma, seen in 79% of patients. All patients had a history of a textured device; there were no patients who had a confirmed smooth-only device history. Approximately 11% of the reported cases were diagnosed with stage 1A disease (tumor-node-metastasis staging classification). CONCLUSIONS: The PROFILE registry continues to be an essential tool in unifying the collection of granular-level data pertaining to BIA-ALCL. These data emphasize the critical importance of detailed tracking of BIA-ALCL cases, and will contribute significantly to our understanding of the relationship between breast implants and ALCL.

Risk of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma in Patients with Textured Tissue Expanders.

BACKGROUND: The association between textured implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is well established, but the risk of BIA-ALCL in patients with transient exposure to a textured tissue expander (TE) is not as well documented. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and risk of BIA-ALCL in patients with temporary exposure to a textured TE with subsequent smooth implant placement. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective cohort study included all female patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction with placement of a textured TE from 1995 to 2016 with subsequent exchange to a smooth permanent implant. Primary outcome of interest was development of BIA-ALCL. Patients with exposure to textured implants were excluded. Follow-up was determined by last documented visit. The authors calculated summary statistics for exposure time and follow-up intervals. RESULTS: Overall, 3310 patients had temporary exposure to a textured TE with exchange to a smooth implant, totaling 5201 textured TEs. Average textured TE exposure time was 6.7 months (median, 5.8 months). Average follow-up was 6.8 years (median, 6.3 years), ranging from 3.7 months to 18 years. No cases of BIA-ALCL were identified. CONCLUSIONS: As no cases of BIA-ALCL were identified, the risk of BIA-ALCL with short exposure to textured TEs is likely lower than the risk from exposure to permanent textured implants. Although longer follow-up is needed, these results can help counsel patients with previous exposure to textured TEs who are concerned about their risk of BIA-ALCL and can contribute to discussions on potential continued utility of textured TEs. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, IV.

Clinical Implications and Management of Non-BIA-ALCL Breast Implant Capsular Pathology.

SUMMARY: The breast implant capsule is a dynamic structure that forms following the implantation of a device. Although normally benign, increased awareness of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) highlights that disease may arise from the capsule. BIA-ALCL presents as a late seroma or mass but explains few of the late seromas found in breast implant patients. To date, many of these seromas lack a clear cause and are often described as "idiopathic." Several benign and malignant breast implant capsular diseases can cause a late seroma or mass, including breast implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma. Similar to early reports of BIA-ALCL, these conditions are rare and largely limited to case reports or series. The purpose of this special topic is to present a narrative review highlighting capsular abnormalities that contribute to the formation of late seroma or mass in an attempt to broaden the differential diagnosis and help plastic surgeons identify the cause. Specifically, we review the presentation and management of BIA-ALCL, synovial metaplasia, capsular epithelialization, late hematoma, double capsule, breast cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, mesenchymal tumor, and B-cell lymphoma. Although rare, plastic surgeons should consider these capsular conditions as causes of late seromas and masses. Usually, these conditions may be diagnosed by following the National Comprehensive Cancer Network screening guidelines for BIA-ALCL. Thorough evaluation and workup of late seromas and masses may lead to improved characterization of these rare breast implant capsular conditions and improve our understanding of their pathophysiology and management.

Autoimmune Disease and Breast Implants: Systematic Review of Outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Given that the use of breast implants for both cosmetic and reconstructive purposes is growing in the United States, an evaluation of factors that may affect the outcome of breast implant surgery is needed. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the question: Does a personal or family history of autoimmune disease affect outcomes in breast implant surgery? The literature search yielded 2425 records, but after removal of duplicates, abstract screening, and full-text assessment, only 2 studies met the inclusion criteria for the final review. Both studies provided level III evidence and the average Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score was 16.5 (range, 15-18 of 24), indicating a fair level of evidence overall. This systematic review found no evidence to support that a diagnosis of an autoimmune disease and/or a family history of autoimmune diseases will lead to poor surgical outcomes in breast implant surgery. Further study is warranted.

Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q.

PURPOSE: Longitudinal, routine utilization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care has been challenging. The purpose of this study is to describe a quality improvement initiative to improve patient engagement with the BREAST-Q, a gold-standard PROM for breast reconstruction. METHODS: In 2011, we implemented the BREAST-Q as part of routine care. In 2018, we began a quality improvement initiative to increase BREAST-Q patient participation. The BREAST-Q was administered at every clinic visit via an institutional patient portal or an in-clinic tablet; digital dashboard technologies were used to improve workflow integration, real-time accountability, and immediate data availability at clinic visits. High clinical staff engagement was encouraged by assigning "BREAST-Q Champions." BREAST-Q completion data and patient characteristics were examined to understand non-response to the assessment. RESULTS: Following quality improvement, the average annual BREAST-Q completion rate increased from 42.8% in 2011-2017 to 87.6% in 2019, the last full year of our study period. High completion rates were maintained January-July 2020; however, a significantly larger proportion of BREAST-Qs were completed at home in 2020 versus the same period in 2019 (49.7 vs. 38.8%, p < 0.001), potentially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared with non-responders, responders were younger (49.7 vs. 52.2 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be white (76.9 vs. 73.6%, p < 0.001), and had private insurance (79.4 vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our quality improvement initiative successfully increased routine completion of the BREAST-Q. Similar implementation techniques may prove beneficial at other institutions interested in incorporating PROMs into routine care.

Association of Radiation Timing with Long-Term Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy is increasingly used after breast cancer surgery, which may impact patients' postoperative quality of life. This study assessed differences in long-term patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after radiation therapy administered at different stages of implant-based breast reconstruction or with no radiation after surgery. METHODS: In this observational study, long-term outcomes were evaluated for four cohorts of women who completed breast reconstruction and received (1) no radiation, (2) radiation before tissue expander placement, (3) radiation after tissue expander placement, or (4) radiation after permanent implant between 2010 and 2017 at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Satisfaction and health-related quality of life were assessed using the prospectively collected Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest BREAST-Q subscales. Score distributions were examined by radiation exposure status for 3 years after surgery using nonparametric analyses and regression models. RESULTS: Of 2932 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 25.8 percent received radiation during breast cancer treatment, including before tissue expander placement ( n = 239; 8.2 percent), after tissue expander placement ( n = 290; 9.9 percent), and after implant placement ( n = 228; 7.8 percent). Radiotherapy patients had average scores 7 to 9 points lower at all postoperative time points for Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest subscales ( p < 0.001). Although patient-reported outcomes did not differ by radiation timing, there were higher rates of severe capsular contracture with postimplant radiotherapy ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy significantly affected patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following implant breast reconstruction through 3 years postoperatively. Patient perception of outcome was unaffected by radiotherapy timing; however, capsular contracture was higher after postimplant radiotherapy, suggesting there may be an advantage to performing radiotherapy before placement of the final reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Matched Preliminary Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes following Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) involve unavoidable confounders, which are often adjusted for in post hoc regression analyses. This study compared patient-reported outcomes between ABR patients and IBR patients by using propensity score matching to control for confounding variables upfront. METHODS: Propensity score matching analysis (2:1 nearest-neighbor matching with replacement) was performed for patients who underwent ABR or IBR without radiotherapy. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, history of psychiatric diagnosis, race-ethnicity, smoking status, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were BREAST-Q questionnaire scores for breast satisfaction and well-being. RESULTS: Of the 2334 patients identified, 427 were included in the final analysis: 159 who underwent ABR and 268 who underwent IBR. The ABR group matched the IBR group in the selected characteristics. ABR patients did not differ significantly from IBR patients in breast satisfaction or well-being at either 1 or 2 years after reconstructive surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary analysis of immediate breast reconstruction patients not requiring radiation therapy with similar propensities for ABR or IBR suggests comparable levels of breast satisfaction and well-being within 2 years after reconstructive surgery. Further research is needed with larger sample sizes, statistical power, and follow-up to better understand patient reported outcomes in this population, as the current findings differ from studies where patients were not matched on baseline characteristics.

BREAST-Q REACT: Clinical Reference Values for the BREAST-Q in Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction Patients.

BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for breast reconstruction research. However, clinical implementation of this PROM has been impeded by a lack of context for score interpretation. The aim of this study was to define reference values for the BREAST-Q at discrete timepoints following surgery, generating a tool for real-time score interpretation. METHODS: BREAST-Q scores were prospectively obtained in women who underwent implant or autologous post-mastectomy breast reconstruction preoperatively and for 2 years following surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). Descriptive statistics were used to create reference values for BREAST-Q satisfaction and quality-of-life subscales. Reference values were externally validated by comparing patient characteristics and BREAST-Q scores between the MSK and the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium (MROC) study cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, 3268 MSK patients and 2814 MROC patients were included for analysis. When MSK and MROC cohorts were compared for validation, there were some statistical differences in BREAST-Q scores; however, most of these differences did not meet the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points. Reference values were used to create the BREAST-Q Real-time Engagement and Communication Tool (REACT). CONCLUSIONS: Using a large cohort of patients, we have defined BREAST-Q reference values for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction patients for use in clinical practice. The BREAST-Q REACT will help breast reconstruction providers gauge patient wellbeing and satisfaction relative to the "average" breast reconstruction patient and determine which patients may benefit from additional intervention.

Understanding Preoperative Breast Satisfaction among Patients Undergoing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction: BREAST-Q Insights.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to present normative values for satisfaction with breasts among preoperative breast reconstruction patients as assessed using the BREAST-Q instrument and to delineate factors associated with preoperative breast satisfaction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed examining women undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction at a tertiary care center who preoperatively completed the BREAST-Q from 2010 to 2017. Because breast satisfaction scores were nonnormally distributed, scores were categorized into quartiles for analysis. Patient- and treatment-level variables were tested in a multivariable ordinal logistic regression model as predictors of breast satisfaction. Preoperative satisfaction was also tested for association with choice of reconstructive modality. RESULTS: Among 1306 postmastectomy reconstruction patients included in the study, mean preoperative Satisfaction with Breasts score was 61.8 ± 21.5 and the median score was 58.0 (interquartile range, 48 to 70). Factors associated with significantly lower preoperative satisfaction included history of psychiatric diagnosis, preoperative radiotherapy, marital status (married), and higher body mass index. Factors associated with significantly higher scores were malignancy (localized tumor), medium bra size (B to C cup), and self-identification as black. Preoperative breast satisfaction was lower among patients who elected autologous reconstruction than among those with implant reconstruction (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative breast satisfaction is influenced by multiple factors. Understanding these factors may improve preoperative counseling and expectation management for patients who undergo postmastectomy breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Smooth versus Textured Implant Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.

BACKGROUND: The association between textured surface breast implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has led to an increase in surgical procedures to exchange textured devices to smooth surface implants. Because patient satisfaction is an integral part of breast reconstruction, the purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes between smooth and textured implant recipients. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either smooth or textured devices from 2009 to 2017 and completed the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure following reconstruction were included in this analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were mean and median BREAST-Q scores and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Overall, 1077 patients were included-785 who underwent breast reconstruction with smooth implants and 292 who underwent breast reconstruction with textured implants. No statistical differences were observed between the textured and smooth implant groups for any of the BREAST-Q domain scores at any of the early (3-month) to late (2-year) postoperative time points. Smooth implant recipients reported significantly more rippling (p = 0.003) than textured implant recipients. In contrast, textured implant recipients had a higher rate of cellulitis than smooth implant recipients (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that postoperative satisfaction with breasts or health-related quality of life following immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction is likely independent of implant surface type. However, smooth breast implants may result in more rippling. The authors' findings represent an important aid in counseling patients who have questions about the risks and benefits of replacing their textured implants with smooth surface devices. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Textured and Smooth Implant Use Reported in the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons Database: Epidemiologic Implications for BIA-ALCL.

Breast-implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is associated with prolonged exposure to textured implants. Current studies describing textured implant use are limited to single center/surgeon experiences. Using the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons database, the study aims to characterize national trends in rates of smooth versus textured implant utilization. The hypothesis is that rates of textured implant use have decreased in the most recent time period. METHODS: Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons was queried from 2007 to 2019 for CPT codes involving breast implant use in augmentation and reconstruction. The rate of smooth and textured implant utilization was calculated for each year per procedure type. Generalized additive models with a smoothing function and Pearson chi-square tests were used to assess the trends. RESULTS: Textured implant use peaked in 2016, being utilized in 17.83% of cosmetic and 40.88% of reconstructive procedures. Textured implants were more commonly used for reconstructive compared with cosmetic cases for 2007-2009, 2011, and 2013-2019 (P < 0.02). Both cosmetic and reconstructive cases had nonlinear trends in textured implant use over the study period, with textured rates decreasing from 2017 to 2019 (P < 0.001). In 2019, textured implants were used in 2.15% of cosmetic and 7.58% of reconstructive cases. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first national study describing trends in textured versus smooth breast implant use in the United States. Textured implant utilization peaked in 2016. Based on a median time horizon of 10 years before development of BIA-ALCL, the peak number of cases can be anticipated in 2026 or thereafter.

Laterality and Patient-Reported Outcomes following Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Free Abdominal Tissue: An 8-Year Examination of BREAST-Q Data.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rise in rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, few studies have used patient-reported outcomes to assess satisfaction between unilateral and bilateral breast reconstruction with autologous tissue. The purpose of this study was to investigate patient satisfaction and quality of life following autologous reconstruction to determine whether differences exist between unilateral and bilateral reconstructions to better guide clinical decision-making. METHODS: The current study examined prospectively collected BREAST-Q results following abdominal free flap breast reconstruction procedures performed at a tertiary academic medical center from 2009 to 2017. The reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q was used to assess outcomes between laterality groups (unilateral versus bilateral) at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and more than 3 years. RESULTS: Overall, 405 patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction completed the BREAST-Q. Cross-sectional analysis at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years revealed similar satisfaction scores between groups; however, bilateral reconstruction patients demonstrated higher satisfaction scores at more than 3 years (p = 0.04). Bilateral reconstruction patients reported lower scores of abdominal well-being at 1 year, 2 years, and more than 3 years (p = 0.01, p = 0.03, and p = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that satisfaction with breasts does not differ with the laterality of the autologous reconstruction up to 3 years postoperatively but may diverge thereafter. Bilateral reconstruction patients, however, have lower satisfaction with the abdominal donor site. These data can be used in preoperative counseling, informed consent, and expectations management in patients considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.