Page 18 - Read Online
P. 18

Topic: Aesthetic Surgery of the Breast





            An analysis of underweight status on 30-


            day outcomes after breast reconstruction




            Anas Eid , Jon P. Ver Halen    1,2
                       1
            1 Division of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Baptist Cancer Center, Germantown, TN 38139, USA.
            2 Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.

            Address for correspondence: Dr. Jon P. Ver Halen, Division of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Baptist Cancer Center,
            Germantown, TN 38139, USA. Email: jpverhalen@gmail.com






                                  Dr. Jon P. Ver Halen is currently an Associate Professor with the Texas A&M School of Medicine,
                                  Department of Surgery. He is also Associate Program Director of the Plastic Surgery Residency, and
                                  Program Director of the Microvascular Surgery Fellowship.






                  ABSTRACT
                  Aim: To examine the impact of underweight body mass index (BMI) values on breast reconstruction
                  outcomes. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement
                  Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent
                  breast reconstruction between 2006 and 2011. Patients were first stratified by breast reconstruction
                  modality  into prosthetic  or  autologous  cohorts,  and  second  by BMI  values  into underweight
                  (BMI < 18.5), normal to overweight (reference, BMI 18.5-29.99), moderate obesity (BMI 30-34.99),
                  severe obesity (BMI 35-39.99), and morbid obesity  cohorts. Multivariate logistic regression
                  models were used to determine independent predictors of complications. Results: With regard to
                  prosthetic breast reconstruction patients, obese patients demonstrated increased rates of surgical
                  complications, while underweight patients did not have any differences on multivariable analysis.
                  With respect to autologous reconstruction, risk-adjusted multivariate regression models showed
                  a dose dependent response between obesity and risk for surgical complications and reoperation,
                  but not for underweight patients. Conclusion: On multivariable analysis of over 4,600 patients,
                  there were no significant differences in the rates of adverse events between underweight patients
                  (BMI < 18.5) and their reference-weight counterparts, in spite of a significant increase in surgical
                  and medical complication rates in underweight patients on univariate analysis.

                  Key words:
                  Breast reconstruction; underweight; complications; body mass index; obesity


                                                              This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
                                                              Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix,
                                                              tweak and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as the author is credited
                           Access this article online         and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
                 Quick Response Code:
                                    Website:                  For reprints contact: service@oaepublish.com
                                    www.parjournal.net
                                                               How to cite this article:  Eid A, Ver Halen JP. An analysis
                                                               of underweight status on 30-day outcomes after breast
                                    DOI:                       reconstruction. Plast Aesthet Res 2016;3:8-14.
                                    10.4103/2347-9264.171423
                                                               Received: 05-05-2015; Accepted: 18-06-2015

            8                                                © 2016 Plastic and Aesthetic Research | Published by OAE Publishing Inc.
   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23