Quality of life after breast reconstruction: comparison of three methods.

Amin Kalaaji, Margareth Bruheim
{"title":"Quality of life after breast reconstruction: comparison of three methods.","authors":"Amin Kalaaji,&nbsp;Margareth Bruheim","doi":"10.3109/02844311003679604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 118 women who had their breasts reconstructed at the Department of Plastic Surgery, Ullevaal University Hospital, Oslo, from 1992-2001. The questionnaire included 36 questions scored on 6-point scales. Seventy-nine women returned a filled-in questionnaire. Five reconstruction methods had been used, but only implants (n = 32), lateral thoracodorsal flaps (n = 18), and transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps (n = 12) had an acceptable number of cases for analysis. A total of 62 patients were included. Most of the cosmetic results differed significantly between the groups. Three-quarters of the patients in the TRAM group were very satisfied with the overall cosmetic results, compared with 11/18 in the lateral thoracodorsal flap group and 11/32 in the implant group. There were general good effects in all groups from the physical, social, and psychological points of view with no significant differences between them. However, achieving symmetry between breasts and the satisfaction about information given to patients about the procedures were two areas that fell short. Fifty (81%) of the 62 women would have recommended the operation to a friend under similar conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49569,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery","volume":"44 3","pages":"140-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/02844311003679604","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/02844311003679604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 118 women who had their breasts reconstructed at the Department of Plastic Surgery, Ullevaal University Hospital, Oslo, from 1992-2001. The questionnaire included 36 questions scored on 6-point scales. Seventy-nine women returned a filled-in questionnaire. Five reconstruction methods had been used, but only implants (n = 32), lateral thoracodorsal flaps (n = 18), and transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps (n = 12) had an acceptable number of cases for analysis. A total of 62 patients were included. Most of the cosmetic results differed significantly between the groups. Three-quarters of the patients in the TRAM group were very satisfied with the overall cosmetic results, compared with 11/18 in the lateral thoracodorsal flap group and 11/32 in the implant group. There were general good effects in all groups from the physical, social, and psychological points of view with no significant differences between them. However, achieving symmetry between breasts and the satisfaction about information given to patients about the procedures were two areas that fell short. Fifty (81%) of the 62 women would have recommended the operation to a friend under similar conditions.

乳房再造术后生活质量:三种方法的比较。
研究人员向118名在1992年至2001年期间在奥斯陆Ullevaal大学医院整形外科接受隆胸手术的女性发送了一份匿名调查问卷。调查问卷包括36个问题,分为6分制。79名女性填写了问卷。采用了五种重建方法,但只有植入物(n = 32)、侧胸背皮瓣(n = 18)和腹直肌横断皮瓣(n = 12)的病例数可用于分析。共纳入62例患者。两组之间的大多数美容效果差异很大。TRAM组四分之三的患者对整体美容效果非常满意,而外侧胸背皮瓣组为11/18,种植体组为11/32。从生理、社会和心理的角度来看,所有组的总体效果都很好,各组之间没有显著差异。然而,实现乳房之间的对称和向患者提供有关手术信息的满意度是两个方面的不足。62名女性中有50人(81%)在类似情况下会向朋友推荐手术。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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