Literature DB >> 11373553

Quality of life, patients' satisfaction, and aesthetic outcome after pedicled or free TRAM flap breast surgery.

Y Brandberg, M Wickman.   

Abstract

Breast reconstructions after breast cancer surgery are primarily performed to improve patients' quality of life. This study was performed to investigate patients' satisfaction with breast reconstruction and quality of life after pedicled or free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap surgery and to evaluate the aesthetic result of the breast reconstruction both objectively and subjectively.Sixty-three patients (36 with pedicled flaps and 27 with free TRAM flaps) answered two questionnaires; of this group, 53 (27 with pedicled flaps and 26 with free TRAM flaps) participated in an aesthetic evaluation. The questionnaires consisted of two parts: one study-specific part concerning satisfaction with the result of the breast reconstruction, the other a standardized health-related quality of life part, the Short Form-36 questionnaire. The aesthetic examination consisted of an objective part in which various distances on the reconstructed and contralateral breast were measured. The volumes of the breasts were measured using a thermoplastic cast system. The softness of the breasts was assessed using applanation tonometry. A panel consisting of three plastic surgeons looked at four standardized photographs of each patient and evaluated the aesthetic outcome subjectively. The panel evaluated the breast reconstruction on 10 subscales. No statistically significant difference between the surgical groups was seen regarding the patients' satisfaction with the reconstruction. In the patients' self-assessment of the cosmetic outcome, the degree of symmetry was assessed higher in the free TRAM flap group. The health-related quality of life Short Form-36 questionnaire revealed no difference between the pedicled and free flap groups. Compared with a reference population, the breast-reconstructed group felt more tired and "worn out," less peaceful, more unhappy, and more restless. The free flap group reached a higher degree of symmetry in the objective evaluation and received generally higher scores from the three-member panel, compared with the pedicled TRAM flap group. A strong correlation between the patients' and the panel's evaluations of the cosmetic outcome was seen; generally, the panel's evaluation of the cosmetic result of the breast correlated with the satisfaction of the patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11373553     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200104150-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  14 in total

1.  Breast reconstruction and psychosocial adjustment: what have we learned and where do we go from here?

Authors:  Patricia A Parker
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.314

2.  [Quality of life and patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction].

Authors:  N A Papadopulos; L Kovacs; A Baumann; S Ali; P Herschbach; G Henrich; E Biemer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Receipt of delayed breast reconstruction after mastectomy: do women revisit the decision?

Authors:  Amy K Alderman; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Barbara Salem; Ann Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven Katz
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Health-related quality of life, surgical and aesthetic outcomes following microvascular free flap reconstructions: an 8-year institutional review.

Authors:  R T Dolan; J S Butler; S M Murphy; K J Cronin
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Quality of life among breast cancer patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction versus breast conserving therapy.

Authors:  D Dian; K Schwenn; I Mylonas; W Janni; K Friese; F Jaenicke
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-11-10       Impact factor: 4.553

6.  Quantifying the aesthetic outcomes of breast cancer treatment: assessment of surgical scars from clinical photographs.

Authors:  Min Soon Kim; William N Rodney; Gregory P Reece; Elisabeth K Beahm; Melissa A Crosby; Mia K Markey
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  The Aesthetic Items Scale: A Tool for the Evaluation of Aesthetic Outcome after Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Rieky E G Dikmans; Lauren E H Nene; Mark-Bram Bouman; Henrica C W de Vet; Marc A M Mureau; Marlon E Buncamper; Hay A H Winters; Marco J P F Ritt; Margriet G Mullender
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-03-01

8.  Quality of life after breast cancer surgery with or without reconstruction.

Authors:  Demetris Stavrou; Oren Weissman; Anna Polyniki; Neofytos Papageorgiou; Joseph Haik; Nimrod Farber; Eyal Winkler
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2009-06-02

9.  Patient satisfaction and surgeon experience: a follow-up to the reduction mammaplasty learning curve study.

Authors:  Matthew J Carty; Antoine Duclos; Xiangmei Gu; Nkemdiche Elele; Dennis Orgill
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2012-05-04

10.  Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement: A Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes Study.

Authors:  Gurjot S Walia; Jeffrey Aston; Ricardo Bello; Gina A Mackert; Rachel A Pedreira; Brian H Cho; Hannah M Carl; Erin M Rada; Gedge D Rosson; Justin M Sacks
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-04-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.