Background: The choice of reconstruction type is of utmost importance in treating breast cancer. There are two major reconstructive pathways in this group of patients: autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare IBR vs. ABR.
Methods: A review of studies reporting the differences between the procedures was performed. The MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, BIOSIS, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched in September 2021. The data concerning group characteristics, BREAST-Q scores, complication rates, length of stay (LOS), and costs were extracted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for randomized studies, while Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment for Cohort Studies was used for other types of research.
Results: Our meta-analysis included 32 studies (n = 55,455). We observed significantly better outcomes following ABR when it comes to esthetic satisfaction (mean difference [MD] -8.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.70, -6.33; p<0.001) and satisfaction with the entire reconstructive treatment (MD -6.56; 95% CI -9.97, -3.14; p<0.001). Both methods appeared to be comparable in terms of safety, while the complication rates varied insignificantly between the groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.06; 95% CI 0.71, 1.59; p = 0.76). ABR seems to be correlated with significantly higher costs (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.69; 95% CI -1.21, -0.17; p = 0.010).
Conclusions: The results obtained from this evidence-based study will improve the understanding of the different clinical pathways that patients can be assigned to. The study emphasized the advantages and disadvantages of both methods.
Keywords: Breast reconstruction; Complications; Flaps; Implants; Tissue expanders.
Copyright © 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.