Defining the Ideal Breast Reconstruction Procedure After Mastectomy From the Patient Perspective: A Retrospective Analysis

IF 1.8 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Ilias G. Petrou, C. Thomet, Omid Jamei, A. Modarressi, D. Kalbermatten, B. Pittet‐Cuenod
{"title":"Defining the Ideal Breast Reconstruction Procedure After Mastectomy From the Patient Perspective: A Retrospective Analysis","authors":"Ilias G. Petrou, C. Thomet, Omid Jamei, A. Modarressi, D. Kalbermatten, B. Pittet‐Cuenod","doi":"10.1177/11782234221089597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: An increasing number of breast cancer patients undergo immediate or secondary breast reconstruction, but the ideal method in terms of patient satisfaction remains ambiguous. We compared the 3 most common breast reconstruction techniques to determine patient satisfaction and objective outcomes. Methods: Retrospective study of 184 patients with breast cancer who underwent a reconstructive procedure between 1993 and 2011 at our institution. Procedures evaluated were implant-based reconstruction (IBR) alone, latissimus dorsi (LD) flap reconstruction with/without implant, and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap reconstruction. A retrospective patient satisfaction questionnaire was sent to all women. Twenty patients from each subgroup were matched to conduct a standardized objective assessment of the sensitivity of their reconstructed breast. A blinded photographic evaluation was also performed by 3 independent observers to assess the esthetic aspect and symmetry. Results: DIEP obtained significantly higher average scores regarding the esthetic outcome, immediate reconstruction impact, and overall score in the questionnaire evaluation. The IBR had the best results in the somatosensory evaluation, with DIEP scoring better than LD. DIEP received higher scores on average than LD for the criteria of size and symmetry in the esthetic evaluation. No statistically significant differences were observed between IBR and DIEP. Conclusions: Good results were reported overall for all breast reconstruction procedures, with more reserved scores for LD. The DIEP reconstruction appeared to be the most satisfactory and best experienced reconstruction method for patients, despite the complexity of the intervention. Clinicians should be encouraged to consider DIEP as the principal choice for breast reconstruction.","PeriodicalId":9163,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer : Basic and Clinical Research","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer : Basic and Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11782234221089597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of breast cancer patients undergo immediate or secondary breast reconstruction, but the ideal method in terms of patient satisfaction remains ambiguous. We compared the 3 most common breast reconstruction techniques to determine patient satisfaction and objective outcomes. Methods: Retrospective study of 184 patients with breast cancer who underwent a reconstructive procedure between 1993 and 2011 at our institution. Procedures evaluated were implant-based reconstruction (IBR) alone, latissimus dorsi (LD) flap reconstruction with/without implant, and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap reconstruction. A retrospective patient satisfaction questionnaire was sent to all women. Twenty patients from each subgroup were matched to conduct a standardized objective assessment of the sensitivity of their reconstructed breast. A blinded photographic evaluation was also performed by 3 independent observers to assess the esthetic aspect and symmetry. Results: DIEP obtained significantly higher average scores regarding the esthetic outcome, immediate reconstruction impact, and overall score in the questionnaire evaluation. The IBR had the best results in the somatosensory evaluation, with DIEP scoring better than LD. DIEP received higher scores on average than LD for the criteria of size and symmetry in the esthetic evaluation. No statistically significant differences were observed between IBR and DIEP. Conclusions: Good results were reported overall for all breast reconstruction procedures, with more reserved scores for LD. The DIEP reconstruction appeared to be the most satisfactory and best experienced reconstruction method for patients, despite the complexity of the intervention. Clinicians should be encouraged to consider DIEP as the principal choice for breast reconstruction.
从患者角度定义乳房切除术后理想乳房重建手术:回顾性分析
背景:越来越多的乳腺癌患者接受立即或二次乳房重建,但理想的方法在患者满意度方面仍然不明确。我们比较了三种最常见的乳房重建技术,以确定患者满意度和客观结果。方法:回顾性研究1993年至2011年在我院行乳腺癌重建手术的184例患者。评估的手术包括单独的基于植入物的重建(IBR)、带/不带植入物的背阔肌(LD)皮瓣重建和深下腹壁穿支(DIEP)游离皮瓣重建。向所有女性发送回顾性患者满意度问卷。每个亚组20例患者进行配对,对其重建乳房的敏感性进行标准化客观评估。由3名独立观察员进行盲法摄影评估,以评估美学方面和对称性。结果:在问卷评估中,DIEP在美学效果、即刻重建影响和总分上均获得了显著高于其他组的平均得分。IBR在躯体感觉评价中得分最高,其中DIEP得分高于LD。在体型和对称的审美评价中,DIEP得分平均高于LD。IBR与DIEP无统计学差异。结论:总的来说,所有乳房重建手术的结果都很好,LD的保留分数更高。尽管干预的复杂性,DIEP重建似乎是患者最满意和最有经验的重建方法。应鼓励临床医生考虑DIEP作为乳房重建的主要选择。
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
5.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
22
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Breast Cancer: Basic and Clinical Research is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, journal which considers manuscripts on all areas of breast cancer research and treatment. We welcome original research, short notes, case studies and review articles related to breast cancer-related research. Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to, breast cancer sub types, pathobiology, metastasis, genetics and epigenetics, mammary gland biology, breast cancer models, prevention, detection, therapy and clinical interventions, and epidemiology and population genetics.
×
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