↓ Skip to main content

Free Versus Pedicled TRAM Flaps: Cost Utilization and Complications

Overview of attention for article published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Free Versus Pedicled TRAM Flaps: Cost Utilization and Complications
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00266-016-0704-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel Golpanian, David J. Gerth, Jun Tashiro, Seth R. Thaller

Abstract

Conventionally, free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (fTRAM) flap breast reconstruction has been associated with decreased donor site morbidity and improved flap inset. However, clinical success depends upon more sophisticated technical expertise and facilities. This study aims to characterize postoperative outcomes undergoing free versus pedicled TRAM (pTRAM) flap breast reconstruction. Nationwide inpatient sample database (2008-2011) was reviewed for cases of fTRAM (ICD-9-CM 85.73) and pTRAM (85.72) breast reconstruction. Inclusion criteria were females undergoing pTRAM or fTRAM breast reconstruction; males were excluded. We examined demographics, hospital setting, insurance information, patient income, and comorbidities. Clinical endpoints included postoperative complications, length-of-stay (LOS), and total charges (TC). Bivariate/multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors associated with increased complications and resource utilization. Overall, 21,655 cases were captured. Seventy-percent were Caucasian, 95 % insured, and 72 % treated in an urban teaching hospital. There were 9 pTRAM and 6 fTRAM in-hospital mortalities. On bivariate analysis, the fTRAM cohort was more likely to be obese (OR 1.2), undergo revision (OR 5.9), require hemorrhage control (OR 5.7), suffer hematoma complications (OR 1.9), or wound infection (OR 1.8) (p < 0.003). The pTRAM cohort was more likely to suffer pneumonia (OR 1.6) and pulmonary embolism (OR 2.0) (p < 0.004). Reconstruction type did not affect risk of flap loss or seroma occurrence. TC were higher with fTRAM (p < 0.001). LOS was not affected by procedure type. On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, fTRAM was an independent risk factor for increased LOS (OR 1.6), TC (OR 1.8), and postoperative complications (OR 1.3) (p < 0.001). Free TRAM has an increased risk of postoperative complications and resource utilization versus pTRAM on the current largest risk-adjusted analysis. Further analyses are required to elucidate additional factors influencing outcomes following these procedures. 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 A3 online Instructions to Authors. www.springer.com/00266 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,449,496
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#1,013
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,401
of 320,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,232 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.