Is immediate breast reconstruction safe in women over 70? An analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, ISSN: 1573-7217, Vol: 177, Issue: 1, Page: 215-224
2019
- 11Citations
- 43Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations11
- Citation Indexes11
- 11
- CrossRef2
- Captures43
- Readers43
- 43
Article Description
Purpose: The safety of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in older women is largely unknown. This study aimed to determine the 30-day postoperative complication rates following IBR (implant-based or autologous) in older women (≥ 70 years) with breast cancer and to compare them to younger women (18–69 years). Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was used to identify women with in situ or invasive breast cancer who underwent IBR (2005–2016). Outcomes included 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality, which were compared across age groups stratified by type of reconstruction. Results: Of 28,850 women who underwent implant-based and 9123 who underwent autologous reconstruction, older women comprised 6.5% and 5.7% of the sample, respectively. Compared to younger women, older women had more comorbidities, shorter operative times, and longer length of hospital stay. In the implant-based reconstruction group, the 30-day morbidity rate was significantly higher in older women (7.5% vs 5.3%, p < 0.0001) due to higher rates of infectious, pulmonary, and venous thromboembolic events. Wound morbidity and prosthesis failure occurred equally among age groups. In the autologous reconstruction group, there was no statistically significant difference in the 30-day morbidity rates (older 9.5% vs younger 11.6%, p = 0.15). Both wound morbidity and flap failure rates were similar between the two age groups. For both reconstruction techniques, mortality within 30 days of breast surgery was rare. Conclusion: Immediate breast reconstruction is safe in older women. These data support the notion that surgeons should discuss IBR as a safe and integral part of cancer treatment in well-selected older women.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85066791379&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05273-1; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31154580; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10549-019-05273-1; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05273-1; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10549-019-05273-1
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know