Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Ambulatory Surgery Versus Traditional Hospitalization Based on the Propensity Score Matching Method

Abstract

Background The positive benefits of immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction (IPBR) are incontrovertible. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care resources became scarce. The implementation of outpatient immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction (OIPBR) can improve the efficiency of medical care and reduce viral exposure. Very few studies have focused on OIPBR and this study aimed to fill this gap by evaluating outcomes of OIPBR compared with traditional hospitalization IPBR (THIPBR) in terms of complications and quality of life. Material and Methods The study enrolled patients undergoing IPBR at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital between January 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021. Outcomes were defined as postoperative complications and quality of life before reconstruction and at 3-month follow-up. Quality of life was assessed by BREAST-Q questionnaire. Inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score matching (PSM) were applied to adjust for confounders. Results A total of 135 patients were enrolled, including 110 with THIPBR and 25 with OIPBR. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. Patients with OIPBR had lower rates of lymphedema on the surgery side (p = 0.041) and readmission (p = 0.040) than patients with THIPBR. No statistically significant differences in the quality of life metrics of psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, satisfaction with breast and physical well-being of the chest were found between the two groups. Conclusion OIPBR is a safe and efficient alternative to THIBPR during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is recommended when medical conditions allow to conserve medical resources. Accelerated technical training for the performance of OIPBR at the hospital level should be expedited. Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.