Timing and type of breast reconstruction in SweBRO 3: long-term outcomes.

IF 8.6 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Rojda Gümüscü, Fredrik Wärnberg, Jana de Boniface, Malin Sund, Kristina Åhsberg, Emma Hansson, Folke Folkvaljon, Dmytro Unukovych, Maria Mani
{"title":"Timing and type of breast reconstruction in SweBRO 3: long-term outcomes.","authors":"Rojda Gümüscü, Fredrik Wärnberg, Jana de Boniface, Malin Sund, Kristina Åhsberg, Emma Hansson, Folke Folkvaljon, Dmytro Unukovych, Maria Mani","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znae240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast reconstruction after mastectomy helps women with breast cancer feel better about their bodies and lives. There is debate about the best time and type of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed, and using own tissue versus implants). Long-term studies are rare.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study looked at long-term results of different breast reconstruction methods and timings in Swedish women who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. It focused on how satisfied the women were with their surgeries and their quality of life.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study included 5853 women from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Registry who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. Of these, 2904 women answered the survey, and 895 had breast reconstruction. Satisfaction and quality of life were measured using two surveys: EORTC QLQ-BRECON23 and BREAST-Q.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the women who answered the survey, 895 (31%) had breast reconstruction. Of these, 176 (20%) had immediate reconstruction, and 719 (80%) had delayed reconstruction; 58% had implant-based reconstructions, 31% had reconstructions using their own tissue, 2% had both types and 9% did not report the type of reconstruction. There were no major differences in satisfaction between immediate and delayed reconstruction. Women who used their own tissue were more satisfied with their results and breast appearance than those with implants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Autologous reconstruction leads to better satisfaction and outcomes than implants. The timing of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed) was less of an influence on quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"111 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11421470/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znae240","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy helps women with breast cancer feel better about their bodies and lives. There is debate about the best time and type of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed, and using own tissue versus implants). Long-term studies are rare.

Aim: This study looked at long-term results of different breast reconstruction methods and timings in Swedish women who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. It focused on how satisfied the women were with their surgeries and their quality of life.

Method: The study included 5853 women from the Swedish National Breast Cancer Registry who had mastectomies in 2000, 2005 or 2010. Of these, 2904 women answered the survey, and 895 had breast reconstruction. Satisfaction and quality of life were measured using two surveys: EORTC QLQ-BRECON23 and BREAST-Q.

Results: Of the women who answered the survey, 895 (31%) had breast reconstruction. Of these, 176 (20%) had immediate reconstruction, and 719 (80%) had delayed reconstruction; 58% had implant-based reconstructions, 31% had reconstructions using their own tissue, 2% had both types and 9% did not report the type of reconstruction. There were no major differences in satisfaction between immediate and delayed reconstruction. Women who used their own tissue were more satisfied with their results and breast appearance than those with implants.

Conclusion: Autologous reconstruction leads to better satisfaction and outcomes than implants. The timing of reconstruction (immediate versus delayed) was less of an influence on quality of life.

SweBRO 3 的乳房重建时间和类型:长期结果。
背景:乳房切除术后的乳房再造有助于乳腺癌妇女更好地感受自己的身体和生活。关于乳房再造的最佳时间和类型(立即再造还是延迟再造,使用自身组织还是植入物)还存在争议。目的:这项研究调查了2000年、2005年或2010年接受乳房切除术的瑞典女性采用不同乳房重建方法和时间的长期效果。研究重点是妇女对手术的满意度以及她们的生活质量:研究对象包括瑞典国家乳腺癌登记处的 5853 名妇女,她们分别在 2000 年、2005 年或 2010 年接受了乳房切除手术。其中,2904 名妇女回答了调查,895 名妇女进行了乳房重建。满意度和生活质量通过两种调查进行测量:EORTC QLQ-BRECON23 和 BREAST-Q:在回答调查的妇女中,有 895 人(31%)进行了乳房再造。其中,176 人(20%)进行了即刻重建,719 人(80%)进行了延迟重建;58% 进行了植入物重建,31% 使用自身组织重建,2% 同时进行了两种类型的重建,9% 未报告重建类型。即刻重建和延迟重建的满意度没有明显差异。使用自体组织的女性对手术效果和乳房外观的满意度高于使用假体的女性:结论:与植入物相比,自体组织重建的满意度更高,效果更好。重建的时间(立即与延迟)对生活质量的影响较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1102
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Surgery (BJS), incorporating the European Journal of Surgery, stands as Europe's leading peer-reviewed surgical journal. It serves as an invaluable platform for presenting high-quality clinical and laboratory-based research across a wide range of surgical topics. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of traditional surgical practices, BJS also showcases emerging areas in the field, such as minimally invasive therapy and interventional radiology. While the journal appeals to general surgeons, it also holds relevance for specialty surgeons and professionals working in closely related fields. By presenting cutting-edge research and advancements, BJS aims to revolutionize the way surgical knowledge is shared and contribute to the ongoing progress of the surgical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信