SEMEY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY

(Nauka i Zdravookhranenie)

Peer-reviewed scientific medical journal

Science & Healthcare

Advanced Search

COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF BREAST  RECONSTRUCTION METHODS. LITERATURE REVIEW

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34689/q1qywb87

Keywords:

Breast cancer, Breast reconstruction, Pedicle flap, Free flap, Kazakhstan

Abstract

Introduction. Breast cancer was the most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide in 2020, with an estimated 2.26 million 
new cases. In Kazakhstan, breast cancer ranks first among newly diagnosed cancers, with 5,101 cases out of 39,077 in 
2022. Radical mastectomy remains the most common surgical intervention, but the resulting physical and psychological 
consequences significantly affect patients' quality of life. Breast reconstruction is essential to restore physical and emotional 
well-being, yet its implementation in Kazakhstan remains limited. 
Objective. To compare global breast reconstruction methods and assess their applicability and relevance in Kazakhstan. 
Search strategy: A literature review was conducted using Web of Science and PubMed. Глубина поиска составила 5 
лет. Reconstruction methods were divided into three groups: (1) tissue implants, (2) pedicle flaps, and (3) microsurgical free 
flaps. The methods were compared based on ease of implementation, cost effectiveness, recovery time, skill requirements, 
oncologic safety, and applicability to regional hospitals. 
Results. Tissue implants provide shorter operative and recovery times but carry risks such as capsular contracture, 
implant migration, and higher infection rates, especially after radiation therapy. Pedicle flaps, including thoracodorsal and 
TRAM flaps, provide robust vascularization and sufficient tissue volume but are associated with donor site morbidity. Free 
flaps, especially DIEP, provide superior aesthetic results but require advanced microsurgical skills and longer operative 
times. Economic analysis revealed higher costs for implant-based reconstruction compared to flap-based methods. 
Conclusion. Each breast reconstruction method has specific advantages and limitations. Implant-based reconstruction 
is faster but is expensive and prone to complications. Pedicle flaps are reliable and cost-effective, while free flaps provide the 
best aesthetic results but require specialized knowledge. Regional hospitals in Kazakhstan should focus on developing 
infrastructure and training programs to provide optimal breast reconstruction services.

Author Biographies

  • Bauyrzhan Anapiya

    старший ординатор, Сектора опухолей кожи и мягких тканей, реконструктивной 
    хирургии, ТОО Национальный Научный Онкологический Центр, г. Астана, Республика Казахстан. e-mail: 
    alaydo@mail.ru, Тел.: 8 707 226 2728, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2311-7861

  • Ayan Erekesh

    ТОО Национальный Научный Онкологический Центр, врач резидент по специальности 
    «Пластическая хирургия взрослая, детская», г. Астана, Республика Казахстан. e-mail: ayerekeshov@gmail.com, 
    https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1004-3608

  • Almira Manatova

    PhD, ведущий специалист отдела науки, ТОО «Национальный научный 
    онкологический центр», г. Астана, Республика Казахстан.

  • Murat Zhumabayev

    врач анестезиолог, ТОО Национальный Научный Онкологический Центр, НАО 
    «Медицинский университет Астана», г. Астана, Республика Казахстан. e-mail: jmb2003@mail.ru, Тел.: 8 701 792 5707, 
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2405-4447

  • Dinara Samenova

    старший ординатор, Сектор маммологии, ТОО Национальный Научный 
    Онкологический Центр, г. Астана, Республика Казахстан. e-mail: samenova_87@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-00022319-1458

  • Daulet Dzhangaliev

    ассистент профессора, НАО «Карагандинский медицинский Университет», г. 
    Караганда, Республика Казахстан. e-mail: Djan_ochlb@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9351-2838

  • Anet Beibit

    врач хирург, Сектор опухолей кожи и мягких тканей, реконструктивной хирургии, ТОО 
    Национальный Научный Онкологический Центр, г. Астана, Республика Казахстан, e-mail: beibitanet@gmail.com, Тел.:  
    8 707 389 5594, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5015-7263

  • Zhuldyz Kuanysh

     магистр, исследователь, e-mail: zhuldyzkuanysh@icloud.com, Тел.:87058283096, 
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9578-4236, ТОО «Национальный научный онкологический центр», г. Астана Республика Казахстан

References

Әнапия Б.Б., Ерекеш А.А., Манатова А.М., Жумабаев М.Б., Саменова Д.Е., Джангалиев Д.Т., Бейбіт Ә.Б., Куаныш Ж.М. Сравнительная характеристика методов реконструкции молочной железы. Обзор литературы // Наука и Здравоохранение. 2024. Т.26 (6). С. 132-141. doi 10.34689/SH.2024.26.6.016

Anapiya B.B., Erekesh A.A., Manatova A.M., Zhumabayev M.B., Samenova D.E., Dzhangaliev D.T., Beibit A.B., Kuanysh Zh.M. Comparative characteristics of breast reconstruction methods. Literature review // Nauka i Zdravookhranenie [Science & Healthcare]. 2024. Vol.26 (6), pp. 132-141. doi 10.34689/SH.2024.26.6.016

Әнапия Б.Б., Ерекеш А.А., Манатова А.М., Жумабаев М.Б., Саменова Д.Е., Джангалиев Д.Т., Бейбіт Ә.Б., Куаныш Ж.М. Сүт бездерін қалпына келтіру әдістерінің салыстырмалы сипаттамасы. Әдебиеттерге шолу // Ғылым және Денсаулық сақтау. 2024. Т.26 (6). Б. 132-141. doi 10.34689/SH.2024.26.6.016

Published

2025-11-10

Issue

Section

Статьи

Categories

How to Cite

COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF BREAST  RECONSTRUCTION METHODS. LITERATURE REVIEW. (2025). Рецензируемый медицинский научно-практический журнал «Наука и здравоохранение», 26(6), 132-141. https://doi.org/10.34689/q1qywb87

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1-10 of 216

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.