retrospective-cohort · PMID 42013898

GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use and Wound Outcomes After Free Flap Breast Reconstruction — VialBase Research

high

Last updated · 2026 · Ha J, Lester E, De May H, Somers S, Eddington D, Agarwal JP, Kwok AC · Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
Key findings
  • GLP-1 users had significantly lower composite wound complication rates than non-users (9.0% vs 17.1%, p = 0.002) after free flap breast reconstruction
  • Reduced surgical site infections (4.1% vs 8.1%, p = 0.026) and wound dehiscence (3.8% vs 7.8%, p = 0.023) in GLP-1 users
  • No differences in debridement, seroma, or hematoma rates between groups
  • Benefit was concentrated in non-diabetic patients (7.9% vs 18.6% composite complications, p = 0.007); diabetic subgroup showed comparable rates between users and non-users
  • Preoperative GLP-1 use was not linked to increased wound complications — supports safety when used perioperatively

GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use and Wound Outcomes After Free Flap Breast Reconstruction

Summary

Retrospective cohort study from University of Utah using the TriNetX Research Network (global de-identified EHR database) to evaluate whether preoperative GLP-1 receptor agonist use (Semaglutide, Tirzepatide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide) is associated with postoperative wound complications in adults undergoing free flap breast reconstruction from 2012–2025. Used 1:1 propensity score matching to control for confounders, with subgroup analysis by diabetes status.

The headline finding: GLP-1 users had roughly half the composite wound complication rate of non-users (9.0% vs 17.1%), driven by lower surgical site infections and wound dehiscence. The benefit was concentrated in non-diabetic patients, suggesting mechanisms beyond glycemic control may be at work.

Key Findings

  • Composite wound complication rate: 9.0% (GLP-1 users) vs 17.1% (non-users), p = 0.002
  • Surgical site infection: 4.1% vs 8.1%, p = 0.026
  • Wound dehiscence: 3.8% vs 7.8%, p = 0.023
  • No difference in debridement, seroma, or hematoma rates
  • Non-diabetic subgroup: 7.9% vs 18.6% composite, p = 0.007
  • Diabetic subgroup: rates comparable between users and non-users

Methodology

  • Retrospective cohort, TriNetX Research Network
  • Adults ≥18 undergoing free flap breast reconstruction 2012–2025, identified by CPT codes
  • GLP-1 exposure defined as prescription within 1 year before surgery
  • 1:1 propensity score matching, then outcome analysis on matched cohorts
  • Diabetes-status subgroup analysis

Limitations

  • Retrospective, observational — residual confounding likely despite propensity matching
  • EHR-based, so GLP-1 adherence and actual dose not verified
  • Breast reconstruction population may not generalize to other surgical settings
  • Mechanism of benefit not established; the disappearance of the effect in diabetics hints at something specific to the non-diabetic metabolic context
  • Sample size not explicit in abstract

Relevance to Content

For the VialBase audience — many of whom are using GLP-1 agonists off-label for weight management — this is a useful data point pushing back on the narrative that perioperative GLP-1 use is uniformly risky. Most recent concerns about GLP-1s around surgery center on anesthesia aspiration risk (gastric retention — see tirzepatide-gastric-retention-case-report-preprint), not wound healing. This paper suggests that for elective reconstructive procedures, the wound-healing concern is not borne out, and the signal may actually run in favor of preoperative GLP-1 exposure.

Useful for:

  • A guide on “peptides and surgery” addressing aspiration risk AND wound-healing data together
  • Citation in Tirzepatide and Semaglutide profile perioperative sections