The Value of a Co-surgeon in Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Summary: Using a co-surgeon model has been suggested to improve perioperative outcomes and reduce the risk of complications. Therefore, we evaluated if a co-surgeon model compared with a single microsurgeon model could decrease the surgical time, length of stay, rate of complications, and healthcare-associated costs in adult patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction (MBR). A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies evaluating the perioperative outcomes and complications of MBR using a single-surgeon model and co-surgeon model were included. A random-effects model was fitted to the data. Seven retrospective comparative studies were included. Ultimately, 1411 patients (48.23%) underwent MBR using a single-surgeon model, representing 2339 flaps (48.42%). On the other hand, 1514 patients (51.77%) underwent MBR using a co-surgeon model, representing 2492 flaps (51.58%). The surgical time was significantly reduced using a co-surgeon model in all studies compared with a single-surgeon model. The length of stay was reduced using a co-surgeon model compared with a single-surgeon model in all but one study. The log odds ratio (log-OR) of recipient site infection (log-OR = −0.227; P = 0.6509), wound disruption (log-OR = −0.012; P = 0.9735), hematoma (log-OR = 0.061; P = 0.8683), and seroma (log-OR = −0.742; P = 0.1106) did not significantly decrease with the incorporation of a co-surgeon compared with a single-surgeon model. Incorporating a co-surgeon model for MBR has minimal impact on the rates of surgical site complications compared with a single-surgeon model. However, a co-surgeon optimized efficacy and reduced the surgical time and length of stay.