Loss to follow-up after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

References

• Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J, et al. Direct-to-implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5):869–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han HH, Kim HB, Kim EK, et al. Direct-to-implant as a frontline option for immediate breast reconstruction: a comparative study with 2-stage reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;81(3):274–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam TC, Hsieh F, Salinas J, et al. Immediate and long-term complications of direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple- or skin-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(11):e1977.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, et al. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):891–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemaine V, Schilz SR, Van Houten HK, et al. Autologous breast reconstruction versus implant-based reconstruction: how do long-term costs and health care use compare? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(2):303–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao R, Tran BNN, Doval AF, et al. A multicenter analysis examining patients undergoing conversion of implant-based breast reconstruction to abdominally based free tissue transfer. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34(9):685–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordeiro PG, Ghione P, Ni A, et al. Risk of breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) in a cohort of 3546 women prospectively followed long term after reconstruction with textured breast implants. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(5):841–846.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marra A, Viale G, Pileri SA, et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: a comprehensive review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2020;84:101963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum JA, Blau YM, Fox HK, et al. Patient loss to follow-up after upper extremity surgery: a review of 2563 cases. Hand. 2019;14(6):836–840.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenland S. Response and follow-up bias in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;106(3):184–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dettori JR. Loss to follow-up. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2011;2(1):7–10.
   Google Scholar
• Butler CW, Snyder M, Wood DE, et al. Underestimation of mortality following lung volume reduction surgery resulting from incomplete follow-up. Chest. 2001;119(4):1056–1060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLean RR, Hannan MT, Epstein BE, et al. Elderly cohort study subjects unable to return for follow-up have lower bone mass than those who can return. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151(7):689–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha I, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG, et al. Late Surgical-Site infection in immediate Implant-Based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(1):20–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hangge PT, Jogerst K, Mohsen A, et al. Making an informed choice: which breast reconstruction type has the lowest complication rate? Am J Surg. 2019;218(6):1040–1045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey JD, Choi M, Salibian AA, et al. Comparison of outcomes with tissue expander, immediate implant, and autologous breast reconstruction in greater than 1000 Nipple-Sparing mastectomies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(6):1300–1310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meshulam-Derazon S, Shay T, Lewis S, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction: comparative outcome study of one-stage direct-to-implant and two-stage/tissue expander techniques. Isr Med Assoc J. 2018;20(6):340–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson JA, Allen RJ, Jr, Polanco T, et al. Long-term patient-reported outcomes following postmastectomy breast reconstruction: an 8-year examination of 3268 patients. Ann Surg. 2019;270(3):473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernini M, Calabrese C, Cecconi L, et al. Subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: surgical, functional, and aesthetic results after long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;73(12):e574.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nelson JA, Voineskos SH, Qi J, et al. Elective revisions after breast reconstruction: results from the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(6):1280–1290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristman V, Manno M, Côté P. Loss to follow-up in cohort studies: how much is too much? Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;19(8):751–760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little RJA. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate date with missing values. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83(404):1198–1202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford SL, Tennstedt SL, McKinlay JB. A comparison of analytic methods for non-random missingness of outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(2):209–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenwold RH, Donders AR, Roes KC, et al. Dealing with missing outcome data in randomized trials and observational studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(3):210–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe CJ, Cole SR, Lau B, et al. Selection bias due to loss to follow up in cohort studies. Epidemiology. 2016;27(1):91–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nohr EA, Liew Z. How to investigate and adjust for selection bias in cohort studies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(4):407–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biele G, Gustavson K, Czajkowski NO, et al. Bias from self selection and loss to follow-up in prospective cohort studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019;34(10):927–938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar