4.4 Article

Breast reconstruction and risk of lymphedema after mastectomy: A prospective cohort study with 10 years of follow-up

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.06.001

Keywords

Breast neoplasia; Reconstruction; Incidence; Lymphedema; Risk factors

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the incidence and risk factors for lymphedema in women submitted to mastectomy, with or without breast reconstruction. Methods: A cohort study was performed on women submitted to mastectomy with axillary lymphadenectomy in a single center. The follow-up included clinical evaluation and arm column measurements before surgery, at 30 days, 6 months, 5 years, and 10 years after surgery. For women subjected to late reconstruction, the time of occurrence of lymphedema (before or after reconstruction) was observed. Results: We followed up on 622 patients submitted to mastectomy and axillary lymphadenectomy for an average period of 57 months after surgery. In total, 94 women were submitted to breast reconstruction, 47 (8%) of them immediate and 47 (8%) late reconstructions. Incidence of lymphedema in the whole group was 33% (n = 204). Among the patients submitted to reconstruction, 28% of them developed lymphedema, on average, 93 months (CI 95%, 88-98) after surgical treatment. In women not subjected to reconstruction, 179 (34%) developed lymphedema, on average, after 106 months (CI 95%, 96-116) (p = 0.03). Breast reconstruction reduced lymphedema risk in 36% (HR = 0.64, CI 96%, 0.42-0.98, p = 0.04). After adjustment for pathological staging and radiotherapy, this was not statistically significant (HR = 0.79, CI 95%, 0.52-1.21, p = 0.28). Conclusion: Breast reconstruction does not increase the risk of lymphedema in long-term follow-up. (C) 2016 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available