ABSTRACT
Background
Autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) significantly improves quality of life following mastectomy. However, ABR has traditionally been underutilized compared to implant‐based breast reconstruction (IBBR), partly due to its technical complexity, longer operative time, and relatively limited reimbursement. This study aimed to evaluate the patterns and evolving trends of ABR in China.
Methods
Annual trends in breast reconstruction at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) from 2000 to 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Data included patient demographics, reconstruction timing, flap types, adjuvant radiotherapy status, and reoperations due to complications. Temporal trends were assessed using linear regression analysis.
Results
Among 6,174 unilateral breast reconstruction cases, 2,123 (34.39%) involved ABR. Latissimus dorsi flaps (LDF) were the most commonly used technique overall (59.87%, n = 1,271), while the use of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps increased markedly over time. By 2023, DIEP flaps accounted for 56.46% of all ABR procedures, becoming the predominant modality. Their rise was particularly notable in delayed and immediate‐delayed reconstructions, as well as in salvage ABR following implant failure. Among patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy, the preference for DIEP flaps also increased significantly. Both LDF and DIEP flaps demonstrated low reoperation rates, highlighting their safety and clinical reliability.
Conclusions
Autologous breast reconstruction in China is shifting toward increased utilization of DIEP flaps, particularly in delayed, immediate‐delayed, and implant‐salvage settings, as well as among patients undergoing radiotherapy. These findings support DIEP as a preferred flap type in modern reconstructive practice.
Keywords: autologous, breast cancer, breast reconstruction, China, deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP), latissimus dorsi flaps (LDF), salvage ABR, transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM)
Summary
This study is the first to delineate a 20‐year shift toward DIEP flaps in autologous breast reconstruction in China, highlighting their rising adoption in immediate‐delayed, delayed, radiotherapy, and implant failure settings, driven by surgical advancements and evolving clinical needs.
1. Introduction
Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women globally, with its incidence continuing to rise [1]. While surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment, increasing attention has been directed toward preserving aesthetics and improving quality of life through techniques such as breast‐conserving surgery. Nevertheless, mastectomy remains a frequently employed surgical approach, particularly in China. Breast reconstruction plays a vital role in comprehensive breast cancer management by improving psychosocial well‐being and mitigating the psychological impact of mastectomy [2, 3, 4].
Although awareness of breast reconstruction has increased in China in recent years, a substantial gap remains compared to developed countries. In 2017, over 106,000 breast reconstruction procedures were performed in the United States, with approximately 40% of mastectomy patients undergoing reconstruction [5]. In contrast, reconstruction rates in China have remained relatively low—estimated at 4.5% in 2012 and increasing to 10.7% by 2017 [6].
Among reconstruction modalities, autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) is considered the gold standard by many plastic surgeons [7]. Compared to implant‐based reconstruction, ABR offers superior long‐term outcomes, including improved psychological and sexual well‐being, higher patient satisfaction, and reduced complication rates [8, 9]. Furthermore, rising concerns over breast implant‐associated anaplastic large‐cell lymphoma (BIA‐ALCL)—a rare T‐cell lymphoma linked to textured implants—have influenced both patient and clinician preferences in favor of autologous options [10, 11]. Despite its advantages, the widespread adoption of ABR in China remains limited, in part due to the complexity of the technique, the need for microsurgical expertise, and relatively lower levels of reimbursement [12].
Historically, the latissimus dorsi flap (LDF), introduced by Tansini in 1906 and later refined by Gilles in the 1950s, was among the earliest techniques used in breast reconstruction. The introduction of silicone implants in the 1960s led to a temporary decline in autologous reconstruction, which regained momentum with the introduction of the pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap by Hartrampf in 1982. Subsequent refinements led to the development of free TRAM, muscle‐sparing TRAM (ms‐TRAM), and ultimately the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap [12, 13, 14]. More recently, autologous fat grafting has also emerged as a supplemental or alternative reconstructive technique [15].
This study aimed to investigate the current status and evolving trends of autologous breast reconstruction among breast cancer patients in China. Utilizing a comprehensive 24‐year data set from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC), we analyzed flap type distribution, patient characteristics, and surgical outcomes. The findings aim to contribute to the optimization and advancement of ABR practices nationwide.
2. Methods
2.1. Patient Cohort
A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent surgical treatment for breast cancer at FUSCC between January 2000 and December 2023. To maintain cohort homogeneity, only unilateral breast reconstruction cases were included. Bilateral reconstructions were excluded due to their more complex clinical indications, surgical approaches, and variable outcome profiles, which could introduce confounding factors. A total of 6,174 unilateral breast reconstruction cases were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included male patients and those with stage IV disease who underwent palliative procedures. Postoperative complications and reoperations were systematically recorded. Informed consent for the academic use of clinical photographs was obtained from each patient. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of FUSCC.
2.2. Methods of Breast Reconstruction
Standard skin‐sparing mastectomy, including nipple‐sparing mastectomy, was performed in patients undergoing either autologous or prosthetic breast reconstruction. ABR methods included LDF with or without implants, TRAM flaps, and DIEP flaps.
In cases of immediate‐delayed reconstruction, a tissue expander was routinely placed during the initial surgery, followed by definitive autologous reconstruction at a later stage. In our cohort, the time interval between mastectomy and flap reconstruction ranged from 1 to 26 months in immediate‐delayed cases (median: 14 months), and from 2 to 84 months in delayed cases (median: 28 months).
All ABR procedures were performed by 10 board‐certified breast surgeons with formal microsurgical training or substantial experience in autologous reconstruction, ensuring consistent surgical expertise throughout the study period.
Due to the retrospective design and incomplete long‐term follow‐up in a subset of patients, data on elective revision procedures (e.g., flap contouring, fat grafting, scar revision) were not comprehensively captured. As such, this study focuses exclusively on unplanned reoperations related to postoperative complications. These were defined as surgical interventions required to manage issues such as flap infection requiring debridement or antibiotics, hematoma or seroma evacuation, partial or total flap loss, vascular compromise necessitating flap re‐exploration, and mastectomy skin flap necrosis.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Independent sample t‐tests and one‐way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare continuous variables. Categorical variables, including adverse events and reoperation rates across different flap types, were compared using pairwise Chi‐square tests. Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate temporal trends in flap selection over the study period. Year of surgery was used as the independent variable, and the annual proportion of each flap type was used as the dependent variable. Regression slopes, R‐values, and p‐values were reported to assess the direction, strength, and significance of observed trends. Subgroup analyses were additionally performed for patients undergoing salvage autologous reconstruction following implant‐based reconstruction failure, as well as for flap type preferences among patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy.
A two‐sided p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
3. Results
3.1. Trends in Autologous Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Over 24 Years in China
We analyzed the distribution and temporal evolution of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) techniques at FUSCC from 2000 to 2023. Among 6,174 unilateral breast reconstruction procedures performed during this period, 2,123 cases (34.39%) utilized autologous methods (Figure 1A). Temporal trends revealed notable shifts. While ABR initially dominated, its utilization plateaued after 2010 with the increasing adoption of implants. However, since 2018, ABR began to rise again, stabilizing at around 20% of annual reconstructions (Figure 1B,C). Of the ABR cases, 1,271 patients (59.87%) underwent LDF (with or without implants), 157 (7.40%) received TRAM flaps, and 695 (32.74%) underwent DIEP flaps (Figure 1D).
Figure 1.
Trends in autologous postmastectomy breast reconstruction over 24 years in China. (A) Overall distribution of reconstruction types among 6,174 unilateral breast reconstruction cases. (B) Annual proportion of autologous and implant‐only reconstruction from 2000 to 2023. (C) Annual case volume of total, autologous, and implant‐only reconstructions from 2000 to 2023. (D) Flap type distribution among the 2,123 autologous cases: LDF with/without implant (59.87%), DIEP (32.74%), and TRAM (7.40%). (E) Temporal changes in flap type proportions from 2000 to 2023. (F) Annual case numbers for each flap type from 2000 to 2023.
In earlier years, LDF was consistently the most utilized technique. Over time, there was a marked shift toward abdominal‐based flaps, particularly DIEP, due to their favorable aesthetic and functional outcomes. DIEP usage began to rise steadily in the 2010s, with a pronounced increase starting in 2019. By 2023, DIEP accounted for 56.46% of all ABR cases, surpassing LDF as the most common technique. In contrast, TRAM usage remained relatively low throughout the study period—peaking at 30.43% in 2009 and declining thereafter to just 2.95% in 2023 (Figure 1E,F; Supporting Table 1). Linear regression analysis demonstrated a significant upward trend in DIEP usage (Slope = 0.0209, R = 0.881, p < 0.001), while LDF (including LDF+IMP) showed a significant decline (slope = −0.0213, R = −0.796, p < 0.001). TRAM use showed no significant temporal change (slope = 0.006, R = 0.006, p = 0.978) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Regression Analysis of Temporal Trends of ABR.
| Flap type | Slope (Annual change) | R‐value | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| DIEP | 0.0209 | 0.88 | < 0.001 |
| TRAM | 6.90E‐05 | 0.006 | 0.978 |
| LDF & LDF + IMP | −0.0213 | −0.80 | < 0.001 |
Abbreviations: DIEP, deep inferior epigastric perforato; LDF, latissimus dorsi flaps; TRAM, transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous.
3.2. Timing of Different ABR Flaps
The timing of ABR demonstrated distinct patterns in flap selection across immediate, immediate‐delayed, and delayed reconstruction approaches. Among all unilateral immediate reconstructions, ABR accounted for 32.29% (1,905/5,900). In contrast, ABR comprised 83.53% (71/85) of immediate‐delayed cases and 77.78% (147/189) of delayed cases (Figure 2A).
Figure 2.
Timing of different ABR flaps. (A) Proportion of ABR in immediate, immediate‐delayed, and delayed reconstruction settings. (B) Distribution of reconstruction timing (immediate, immediate‐delayed, and delayed) among all ABR cases (n = 2,123). (C) Flap type distribution by reconstruction timing. Chi‐square analysis confirmed significant differences in flap selection across timing groups (p < 0.001). (D) Annual number of each flap type used in immediate, immediate‐delayed, and delayed ABR. (E) Yearly proportion of each flap type by timing group.
Of all patients undergoing ABR, the vast majority (89.73%, 1,905/2,123) received immediate reconstruction, while 3.34% (71/2,123) underwent immediate‐delayed and 6.92% (147/2,123) received delayed reconstruction (Figure 2B). Immediate reconstructions were predominantly performed using LDF (64.15%), either alone or combined with implants. In contrast, DIEP flaps were more frequently selected in both immediate‐delayed (64.79%) and delayed (76.87%) reconstructions. Chi‐square analysis confirmed a significant difference in flap distribution (DIEP, TRAM, LDF, LDF+IMP) among reconstruction timing groups (χ² = 62.23, p < 0.001) (Figure 2C).
The predominance of LDF in immediate cases reflects earlier institutional practice. However, DIEP flap usage has gradually increased over time in all reconstruction timing categories (Supporting Table 2). Immediate‐delayed reconstructions showed a particularly marked shift toward DIEP in recent years, likely reflecting growing preference for its favorable aesthetic outcomes and reduced donor‐site morbidity (Supporting Table 3). A similar trend was observed in delayed reconstructions, where DIEP has become the dominant choice (Supporting Table 4; Figure 2D,E).
3.3. Salvage ABR in Patients With IBBR Failure or Dissatisfaction
We further analyzed ABR in patients who underwent implant‐based reconstruction (IBBR) and subsequently experienced complications or dissatisfaction. Among 168 documented implant‐related complications during the study period, 46 patients (27.38%) transitioned to autologous reconstruction. The rate of transition varied across years, with a notable increase in recent times. In 2023, 72.22% (13 of 18) of patients with implant complications opted for salvage ABR, suggesting a growing clinical and patient preference for autologous options in revision settings (Supporting Table 5).
Among the 46 salvage cases, DIEP flaps were the most commonly used technique (71.73%, 33/46). This trend was particularly pronounced in 2023, when 92.31% (12/13) of salvage procedures were performed using DIEP flaps. Other flap types, such as LDF and TRAM, were used less frequently (Supporting Table 6). Linear regression analysis revealed a significant upward trend in DIEP flap use for salvage reconstruction over time (slope = 8.87, R = 0.741, p = 0.0356), accompanied by a significant decline in the use of LDF and LDF+IMP (slope = −8.76, R = −0.799, p = 0.0174). No significant trend was observed for TRAM usage (slope = 0.56, R = 0.179, p = 0.6708).
3.4. Utilization of Autologous Flaps in Patients Requiring Adjuvant Radiotherapy
We further examined flap selection among patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. Of the 1,090 reconstruction cases involving radiotherapy, 656 (60.18%) were performed using autologous methods. In recent years, over half of these patients have consistently favored autologous reconstruction over implant‐based approaches (Supporting Table 7).
Among the 656 autologous cases, LDF (with or without implants) remained the most frequently used flap overall (62.20%, 408/656), followed by DIEP flaps (33.23%, 218/656). However, DIEP usage has markedly increased in recent years. By 2023, 53.42% of radiotherapy‐related ABR procedures were performed using DIEP flaps, surpassing LDF (45.21%) as the preferred method (Supporting Table 8).
Linear regression analysis confirmed this trend: DIEP flap use increased significantly over time (slope = 2.25, R = 0.603, p = 0.013). In contrast, TRAM and LDF flap usage declined, with TRAM decreasing by 1.07% annually (slope = −1.07, R = −0.588, p = 0.017), and LDF by 1.44% annually, though not reaching statistical significance (slope = −1.44, R = −0.408, p = 0.12).
3.5. Unplanned Reoperations Due to Complications
The reoperation rate reported in our study reflects only unplanned surgical interventions necessitated by postoperative complications, excluding elective revisions or planned staged procedures. Common indications for reoperation included hematoma or seroma evacuation, flap infection, vascular compromise requiring re‐exploration, and mastectomy skin flap necrosis.
A total of 61 ABR patients (2.87%) experienced complications necessitating reoperation. Among these, LDF (including LDF+IMP) accounted for the largest proportion (39.34%, 24/61), followed by DIEP (32.79%, 20/61) and TRAM (27.87%, 17/61) (Figure 3A).
Figure 3.
Unplanned Reoperations Due to Complications. (A) Distribution of unplanned reoperations stratified by flap type. (B) Absolute number of patients with and without reoperations for each flap type. (C) Flap‐specific reoperation rates, calculated as the proportion of patients requiring reoperation relative to total cases per flap type. (D) Temporal trends in the number of reoperations by flap type from 2000 to 2023, showing longitudinal changes in complication‐related surgical interventions.
When reoperation rates were evaluated relative to the total number of cases per flap type, significant variation emerged. TRAM flaps demonstrated the highest reoperation rate at 10.83% (17/157), compared to 2.88% for DIEP (20/695) and 1.89% for LDF/LDF+IMP (24/1,271) (Figure 3B,C). Pairwise Chi‐square comparisons confirmed that TRAM flaps were associated with significantly higher reoperation rates than both DIEP (χ² = 17.62, p < 0.001) and LDF/LDF+IMP (χ² = 36.90, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between DIEP and LDF/LDF+IMP (χ² = 1.58, p = 0.21) (Table 2). Notably, despite the sharp rise in DIEP utilization after 2019, no unplanned reoperations were reported among DIEP recipients between 2021 and 2023, suggesting favorable outcomes with increasing institutional experience (Figure 3D).
Table 2.
Pairwise Chi‐Square Test Results for Complications across Different Flap Types.
| Comparison | Chi‐square value | p value | Adjusted p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| DIEP vs TRAM | 17.62 | 2.70E‐06 | 8.09E‐05 |
| DIEP vs LDF & LDF + IMP | 1.58 | 0.21 | 0.62 |
| TRAM vs LDF & LDF + IMP | 36.90 | 1.24E‐09 | 3.72E‐09 |
Abbreviations: DIEP, deep inferior epigastric perforator; LDF, latissimus dorsi flaps; TRAM, transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous.
4. Discussion
This 24‐year analysis at FUSCC reveals substantial shifts in ABR practice, reflecting both institutional evolution and broader national trends. As one of China's largest cancer centers—with over 10,000 annual breast cancer surgeries since 2023—FUSCC provides a meaningful data set to assess long‐term reconstructive patterns. Although single‐center in design, the scale, consistency, and academic influence of FUSCC enhance the broader relevance of these findings. To reduce heterogeneity, only unilateral cases were included, which represent the majority of ABR in China and allow more consistent comparison across time. ABR has remained stable at approximately 30% of all reconstructions, indicating growing acceptance and technical maturity.
A key finding is the shift in flap preference: LDF was historically dominant, but DIEP has rapidly become the leading technique, accounting for over half of all ABR by 2023. This mirrors Western trends [16, 17] and reflects increasing microsurgical capacity and a focus on long‐term outcomes. The transition to DIEP was especially pronounced in delayed and immediate‐delayed settings, where its aesthetic advantages and lower donor‐site morbidity are more valued [18].
We also evaluated flap selection in complex clinical contexts. A subset of IBBR failures require conversion to salvage ABR—a process that presents considerable challenges due to compromised vascular supply, increased risk of complications, and potential adverse impacts on aesthetic outcomes and patient quality of life, making it a particularly complex clinical scenario for both patients and surgeons [19]. At FUSCC, 27.38% of IBBR failure cases underwent conversion to ABR as a salvage strategy. In salvage reconstruction following IBBR failure, DIEP has become the preferred option. Among 46 patients who underwent conversion to ABR, 71.73% received DIEP, with the proportion rising to 92.31% (12 of 13 cases) in 2023 alone. This trend underscores the reliability, aesthetic superiority, and low donor‐site morbidity of DIEP flaps, even in compromised surgical fields. Similarly, among radiotherapy recipients, DIEP has surpassed LDF as the most commonly used flap, with no corresponding rise in complication rates—underscoring its robustness in irradiated fields when carefully planned.
Reoperation rates further support flap‐specific reliability. Flap‐specific complication profiles further support this trend. TRAM flaps exhibited the highest complication rate (10.83%), while DIEP and LDF showed lower rates (2.88% and 1.89%, respectively). Importantly, no unplanned reoperations occurred in DIEP patients from 2021 to 2023, suggesting technical refinement and improved patient selection. This trend may reflect advancements in surgical technique, refined patient selection, and improved perioperative management, all of which may have contributed to the reduced complication rates during this period. Additionally, the limited follow‐up period for some patients—given that data collection ended in late 2023—may have led to underreporting of late complications or elective revision surgeries. This is acknowledged as a limitation of the present study.
While our study reflects the experience of a single high‐volume tertiary center, it is important to consider how these findings relate to broader national trends. Questionnaire‐based investigations conducted across tertiary hospitals have reported increasing interest in autologous reconstruction, particularly DIEP flaps, and growing use of immediate or immediate‐delayed approaches [20, 21]. Additionally, the CAPPELLA trial [22]—a prospective multicenter study across nine major cancer centers—reflects a national shift toward DIEP‐based reconstruction in complex settings such as post‐radiotherapy patients. These external data points suggest that the trends observed at our institution are not isolated, but rather part of a broader nationwide evolution in reconstructive practice.
Despite these improvements, it is worth noting that despite significant advances in breast cancer treatment, the rate of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in China remains substantially lower than in Western countries [21]. Several interrelated factors contribute to this discrepancy. Culturally, Chinese patients often prioritize cancer eradication and survival over aesthetic outcomes, which may reduce the perceived necessity of reconstruction. Infrastructurally, microsurgical capacity is unevenly distributed, with most experienced surgeons concentrated in top‐tier institutions [2]. Economically, partial or limited insurance coverage presents a substantial financial burden for many patients, in contrast to the more comprehensive reimbursement policies found in high‐income nations. Moreover, delayed cancer diagnoses in China frequently preclude immediate reconstruction, and anatomical considerations—such as lower average BMI and abdominal tissue volume—may also affect flap eligibility and selection [23, 24, 25, 26]. Addressing these multifactorial barriers through earlier detection, patient education, expanded microsurgical training, and more equitable insurance policies will be essential to improving reconstruction access. Ultimately, increasing the national rate of breast reconstruction should be viewed as an important public health objective aligned with comprehensive survivorship care.
Our study had some limitations. First, its single‐center retrospective design may not fully represent trends across different regions or healthcare settings. Additionally, although we observed significant trends, the causative factors were only inferred and require further prospective validation. Moreover, data on patient‐reported outcomes, such as satisfaction and long‐term aesthetics, were not comprehensively captured. Revision procedures are an important aspect of reconstructive outcomes; however, due to the retrospective nature of our study and limited follow‐up in some cases, elective revision surgeries were not consistently recorded and thus were excluded from analysis. Finally, variability in surgical expertise and access to advanced techniques may have influenced the patterns of flap utilisation.
5. Conclusion
This 24‐year retrospective analysis reveals a clear shift in autologous breast reconstruction in China—from predominant reliance on LDF flaps toward increasing adoption of DIEP flaps. This transition is especially evident in patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy, delayed or immediate‐delayed reconstruction, and salvage procedures following implant failure. Both LDF and DIEP flaps demonstrated low complication and reoperation rates, with recent DIEP outcomes showing near‐zero unplanned reoperations. These findings reflect the growing emphasis on individualized, technique‐driven reconstruction and reinforce the evolving standard of care aimed at optimizing long‐term outcomes and quality of life for Chinese breast cancer patients.
Author Contributions
Shuang Hao, Jiong Wu and Xuliren Wang initiated the study; organized, designed, and revised the paper; and performed the research. Bingqiu Xiu, Zhibo Shao, Han Zhu and Rui Xu collected data and provided critical ideas. Xuliren Wang, Zhibo Shao and Han Zhu analyzed the data. Qi Zhang and Yi Zhang performed some of the analysis and figure preparation. Jiajian Chen, Bingqiu Xiu, Jingyan Xue and Jing Liu provided useful suggestions in methodology. Yingying Zhang, Ayong Cao, Zhi‐Ming Shao and Miao Mo provided assistance in the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82102683, No. 82272865).
Ethical Statement
The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the Ethical Review Community of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) (050432‐4‐2108*), and all patients signed informed consent forms in accordance with institutional guidelines.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Synopsis
This 24‐year, single‐centre retrospective study at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center investigated evolving trends in autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) following mastectomy. Analysis of 2,123 cases revealed a marked shift from latissimus dorsi flaps (LDF) to deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps, which became the dominant technique by 2023. DIEP flaps were increasingly utilized in delayed, immediate‐delayed, and salvage reconstructions, particularly among patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. Both DIEP and LDF approaches demonstrated low reoperation rates, underscoring their safety and clinical value. These findings highlight changing surgical preferences and advancements in breast reconstruction in China.
Supporting information
Supplementary Table 1: Annual Proportions of Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 2: Annual Proportions of Immediate Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 3: Annual Proportions of Immediate‐Delayed Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 4: Annual Proportions of Delayed Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 5: Annual Proportions of Salvage Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 6: Annual Proportions of Different Autologous Flaps in Salvage ABR. Supplementary Table 7: Annual Proportions of Autologous Reconstructions in Patients with Radiotherapy. Supplementary Table 8: Annual Proportions of Different Autologous Flaps in Patients with Radiotherapy.
Xuliren Wang, Zhibo Shao, and Han Zhu contributed equally to this study.
Contributor Information
Bingqiu Xiu, Email: bingqiu_xiu@fudan.edu.cn.
Jiong Wu, Email: wujiong@fudan.edu.cn, Email: wujiong1122@vip.sina.com.
Shuang Hao, Email: haoshuang50@163.com.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supporting material of this article.
References
- 1. Siegel R. L., Miller K. D., Wagle N. S., and Jemal A., “Cancer Statistics, 2023,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 73, no. 1 (2023): 17–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Jia‐jian C., Nai‐si H., Jing‐yan X., et al., “Current Status of Breast Reconstruction in Southern China: A 15 Year, Single Institutional Experience of 20,551 Breast Cancer Patients,” Medicine 94, no. 34 (2015): e1399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Huang N.‐S., Quan C.‐L., Ma L.‐X.‐X., et al., “Current Status of Breast Reconstruction in China: An Experience of 951 Breast Reconstructions From a Single Institute,” Gland Surgery 5, no. 3 (2016): 278–286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Chang E. I., “Latest Advancements in Autologous Breast Reconstruction,” Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 147, no. 1 (2021): 111e–122ee. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Lee G. K. and Sheckter C. C., “Breast Reconstruction Following Breast Cancer Treatment‐2018,” Journal of the American Medical Association 320, no. 12 (2018): 1277–1278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Yang B., Ren G., Song E., et al., “Current Status and Factors Influencing Surgical Options for Breast Cancer in China: A Nationwide Cross‐Sectional Survey of 110 Hospitals,” Oncologist 25, no. 10 (2020): e1473–e1480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Matros E., Albornoz C. R., Razdan S. N., et al., “Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Implants Versus Autologous Perforator Flaps Using the BREAST‐Q,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 135, no. 4 (2015): 937–946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Rocco N., Catanuto G. F., Accardo G., et al., “Implants Versus Autologous Tissue Flaps for Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10, no. 10 (2024): 013821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Stefura T., Rusinek J., Wątor J., et al., “Implant vs. Autologous Tissue‐Based Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of the Studies Comparing Surgical Approaches in 55,455 Patients,” Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery: JPRAS 77 (2023): 346–358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Kolasiński J., Sorotos M., Firmani G., et al., “BIA‐ALCL Epidemiology in an Aesthetic Breast Surgery Cohort of 1501 Patients,” Aesthetic Surgery Journal 43, no. 11 (2023): 1258–1268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Vorstenbosch J., Chu J. J., Ariyan C. E., McCarthy C. M., Disa J. J., and Nelson J. A., “Clinical Implications and Management of Non‐BIA‐ALCL Breast Implant Capsular Pathology,” Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 151, no. 1 (2023): 20e–30e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Piatkowski A. A., Wederfoort J. L. M., Hommes J. E., et al., “Effect of Total Breast Reconstruction With Autologous Fat Transfer Using an Expansion Device vs Implants on Quality of Life Among Patients With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA Surgery 158, no. 5 (2023): 456–464. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Rozen W. M., Rajkomar A. K. S., Anavekar N. S., and Ashton M. W., “Post‐Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A History in Evolution,” Clinical Breast Cancer 9, no. 3 (2009): 145–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Costanzo D., Klinger M., Lisa A., Maione L., Battistini A., and Vinci V., “The Evolution of Autologous Breast Reconstruction,” Breast Journal 26, no. 11 (2020): 2223–2225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Shaaban B., Guerrero D., De La Cruz C., and Kokai L., “Fat Grafting in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Applications, Outcomes, Safety, and Complications,” Plastic and Aesthetic Research 10, no. 1 (2023): 12. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Masoomi H., Hanson S. E., Clemens M. W., and Mericli A. F., “Autologous Breast Reconstruction Trends in the United States: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database,” Annals of Plastic Surgery 87, no. 3 (2021): 242–247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Shah J. K., Amakiri U. O., Cevallos P., et al., “Updated Trends and Outcomes in Autologous Breast Reconstruction in the United States, 2016–2019,” Annals of Plastic Surgery 92, no. 4 (2024): e1–e13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. R. Garza, III , Ochoa O., and Chrysopoulo M., “Post‐Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction With Autologous Tissue: Current Methods and Techniques,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open 9, no. 2 (2021): e3433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. von Glinski M., Holler N., Kümmel S., et al., “Autologous Reconstruction After Failed Implant‐Based Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Multifactorial Outcome Analysis,” Annals of Plastic Surgery 91, no. 1 (2023): 42–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Xu F., Sun H., Zhang C., et al., “Comparison of Surgical Complication Between Immediate Implant and Autologous Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy: A Multicenter Study of 426 Cases,” Journal of Surgical Oncology 118, no. 6 (2018): 953–958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Xu F., Lei C., Cao H., et al., “Multi‐Center Investigation of Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy From Chinese Society of Breast Surgery: A Survey Based on 31 Tertiary Hospitals (CSBrS‐004),” Chinese Journal of Cancer Research 33, no. 1 (2021): 33–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Hao S., Hou J., Zhang L., et al., “Protocol for a Multicentre, Prospective, Open‐Label, Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare Pros and Safety Outcomes Between Preoperative and Postmastectomy Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Patients With Immediate Reconstruction via a Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap (Cappella) in China,” BMJ Open 15, no. 1 (2025): e086980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. An J., Hershberger P. E., and Ferrans C. E., “Delayed Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Breast Cancer Among Chinese Women: An Integrative Literature Review,” Cancer Nursing 46, no. 3 (2023): 217–232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Li Y. L., Qin Y. C., Tang L. Y., et al., “Patient and Care Delays of Breast Cancer in China,” Cancer Research and Treatment 51, no. 3 (2019): 1098–1106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Guo S., Hu X., Shao Z., Wang H., Fang Q., and Li N., “A Network Data‐Based Survey and Analysis of Attention Towards Breast Reconstruction After Breast Cancer Surgery in Chinese and American Populations,” Chinese Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 3, no. 3 (2021): 129–135. [Google Scholar]
- 26. Gong F., Ding L., Chen X., et al., “Degree of Acceptance of Breast Reconstruction and the Associated Factors Among a Population of Chinese Women With Breast Cancer,” Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 42, no. 6 (2018): 1499–1505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary Table 1: Annual Proportions of Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 2: Annual Proportions of Immediate Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 3: Annual Proportions of Immediate‐Delayed Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 4: Annual Proportions of Delayed Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 5: Annual Proportions of Salvage Autologous Breast Reconstruction. Supplementary Table 6: Annual Proportions of Different Autologous Flaps in Salvage ABR. Supplementary Table 7: Annual Proportions of Autologous Reconstructions in Patients with Radiotherapy. Supplementary Table 8: Annual Proportions of Different Autologous Flaps in Patients with Radiotherapy.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supporting material of this article.