Postoperative Day 1 Discharge in Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction.

With high success rates of autologous breast reconstruction, the focus has shifted from flap survival to improved patient outcomes. Historically, a criticism of autologous breast reconstruction has been the length of hospital stay. Our institution has progressively shortened the length of stay after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction and began discharging select patients on postoperative day 1 (POD1). The purpose of this study was to document our experience with POD1 discharges and to identify preoperative and intraoperative factors that may identify patients as candidates for earlier discharge. Methods: An institutional review board-approved, retrospective chart review of patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction from January 2019 to March 2022 at Atrium Health was completed, consisting of 510 patients and 846 DIEP flaps. Patient demographics, medical history, operative course, and postoperative complications were collected. Results: Twenty-three patients totaling 33 DIEP flaps were discharged on POD1. The POD1 group and the group of all other patients (POD2+) had no difference in age, ASA score, or comorbidities. BMI was significantly lower in the POD1 group (P = 0.039). Overall operative time was significantly lower in the POD1 group, and this remained true when differentiating into unilateral operations (P = 0.023) and bilateral operations (P = 0.01). No major complications occurred in those discharged on POD1. Conclusions: POD1 discharge after DIEP flap breast reconstruction is safe for select patients. Lower BMI and shorter operative times may be predictive in identifying patients as candidates for earlier discharge.

Comparing Outcomes in the Therapeutic and Prophylactic Breast for Bilateral Mastectomy With Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly patients with unilateral breast cancer elect to undergo bilateral mastectomy with subsequent reconstruction. Studies have aimed to better identify the risks associated with performing mastectomy on the noncancerous breast. Our study aims to identify differences in complications between therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomy in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2020 at our institution was completed. Patients with less than 6-month follow-up after final implant placement had reconstruction using autologous flaps, expander or implant rupture, metastatic disease requiring device removal, or death before completion of reconstruction were excluded. McNemar test identified differences in incidence of complications for therapeutic and prophylactic breasts. RESULTS: After analysis of 215 patients, we observed no significant difference in incidence of infection, ischemia, or hematoma between the therapeutic and prophylactic sides. Therapeutic mastectomies had higher odds of seroma formation ( P = 0.03; odds ratio, 3.500; 95% confidence interval, 1.099-14.603). Radiation treatment status was analyzed for patients with seroma; 14% of patients unilateral seroma of the therapeutic side underwent radiation (2 of 14), compared with 25% patients with unilateral seroma of the prophylactic side (1 of 4). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction, the therapeutic mastectomy side has an increased risk of seroma formation.