Predictors of Aesthetic Outcomes in Bilateral DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Preliminary Analysis of Aesthetic Grading Tool Scores.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Jennifer Wang, Ronnie L Shammas, Elizabeth Smith-Montes, Lillian A Boe, Robert Jr J Allen, Carrie S Stern, Jonas A Nelson
{"title":"Predictors of Aesthetic Outcomes in Bilateral DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Preliminary Analysis of Aesthetic Grading Tool Scores.","authors":"Jennifer Wang, Ronnie L Shammas, Elizabeth Smith-Montes, Lillian A Boe, Robert Jr J Allen, Carrie S Stern, Jonas A Nelson","doi":"10.1055/a-2968-4594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Objective assessment of aesthetic outcomes following post-mastectomy breast reconstruction remains challenging. The Aesthetic Grading Tool (AGT) was developed as a standardized tool to evaluate aesthetic outcomes independent of patient-reported satisfaction. This study aimed to identify factors associated with aesthetic outcomes using the AGT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 35 de-identified photographs of patients who underwent bilateral autologous reconstruction were included in the AGT. Respondents including attending physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, trainees, and patients rated aesthetic outcomes on a 5-point Likert scale. Associations between aesthetic scores and clinical variables, including receipt of radiation, 90-day readmission, and mastectomy type, were assessed. Differences in scores by respondent training level were also analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-one respondents completed the AGT. Of the 35 patients whose photographs are included in the AGT, 26% received radiation, and 91% underwent a skin-sparing mastectomy. Receipt of preoperative radiation was associated with lower scores (β = -0.68, 95% CI: - 1.3 to - 0.04, <i>p</i> = 0.039). Patients with 90-day readmission (1.98 vs. 3.15, <i>p</i> = 0.11) and those who underwent conventional as opposed to skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (2.25 vs. 3.09 vs. 3.21, <i>p</i> = 0.5) trended toward lower AGT scores. Attending physicians consistently assigned higher scores across all variables, whereas patient respondents provided among the lowest scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Receipt of radiation is associated with worse aesthetic outcomes following bilateral autologous reconstruction. Patients with 90-day readmission and conventional mastectomy trend toward worse aesthetic outcomes. Providers should counsel patients who are undergoing bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction on expected aesthetic outcomes based on their treatment course.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2968-4594","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Objective assessment of aesthetic outcomes following post-mastectomy breast reconstruction remains challenging. The Aesthetic Grading Tool (AGT) was developed as a standardized tool to evaluate aesthetic outcomes independent of patient-reported satisfaction. This study aimed to identify factors associated with aesthetic outcomes using the AGT.

Methods: A total of 35 de-identified photographs of patients who underwent bilateral autologous reconstruction were included in the AGT. Respondents including attending physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, trainees, and patients rated aesthetic outcomes on a 5-point Likert scale. Associations between aesthetic scores and clinical variables, including receipt of radiation, 90-day readmission, and mastectomy type, were assessed. Differences in scores by respondent training level were also analyzed.

Results: Ninety-one respondents completed the AGT. Of the 35 patients whose photographs are included in the AGT, 26% received radiation, and 91% underwent a skin-sparing mastectomy. Receipt of preoperative radiation was associated with lower scores (β = -0.68, 95% CI: - 1.3 to - 0.04, p = 0.039). Patients with 90-day readmission (1.98 vs. 3.15, p = 0.11) and those who underwent conventional as opposed to skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (2.25 vs. 3.09 vs. 3.21, p = 0.5) trended toward lower AGT scores. Attending physicians consistently assigned higher scores across all variables, whereas patient respondents provided among the lowest scores.

Conclusion: Receipt of radiation is associated with worse aesthetic outcomes following bilateral autologous reconstruction. Patients with 90-day readmission and conventional mastectomy trend toward worse aesthetic outcomes. Providers should counsel patients who are undergoing bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction on expected aesthetic outcomes based on their treatment course.

双侧DIEP皮瓣乳房重建美学结果的预测因素:美学评分工具评分的初步分析。
背景:客观评估乳房切除术后乳房重建的美学结果仍然具有挑战性。美学评分工具(AGT)是一种独立于患者报告满意度评估美学结果的标准化工具。本研究旨在确定与使用AGT的美学结果相关的因素。方法将35例双侧自体重建患者的去识别照片纳入AGT。受访者包括主治医生,高级实践提供者,护士,受训人员和患者评定美学结果5分李克特量表。评估美学评分与临床变量之间的关系,包括接受放射治疗、90天再入院和乳房切除术类型。此外,还分析了被调查者培训水平的差异。结果91名被调查者完成了AGT。在35名照片被纳入AGT的患者中,26%接受了放疗,91%接受了保留皮肤的乳房切除术。术前接受放疗与评分较低相关(β = -0.68, 95% CI: -1.3 -0.04, p=0.039)。90天再入院的患者(1.98 vs 3.15, p=0.11)和接受传统的保留皮肤或保留乳头乳房切除术的患者(2.25 vs 3.09 vs 3.21, p=0.5)倾向于较低的AGT评分。主治医生在所有变量中都给出了较高的分数,而患者则给出了最低的分数。结论接受放射治疗与双侧自体重建术术后美学效果差有关。再入院90天的患者和传统的乳房切除术倾向于较差的美学结果。提供者应根据患者的治疗过程,向接受双侧DIEP皮瓣重建的患者咨询预期的美学结果。
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
4.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
80
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal that provides an international forum for the publication of articles focusing on reconstructive microsurgery and complex reconstructive surgery. The journal was originally established in 1984 for the microsurgical community to publish and share academic papers. The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery provides the latest in original research spanning basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations. Review papers cover current topics in complex reconstruction and microsurgery. In addition, special sections discuss new technologies, innovations, materials, and significant problem cases. The journal welcomes controversial topics, editorial comments, book reviews, and letters to the Editor, in order to complete the balanced spectrum of information available in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. All articles undergo stringent peer review by international experts in the specialty.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书