Literature DB >> 11711933

The health burden of breast hypertrophy.

C L Kerrigan1, E D Collins, D Striplin, H M Kim, E Wilkins, B Cunningham, J Lowery.   

Abstract

Women seeking consultation for the surgical relief of symptoms associated with breast hypertrophy have been the focus of many studies. In contrast, little is known about those women with breast hypertrophy who do not seek symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to describe the health burden of breast hypertrophy by using a set of validated questionnaires and to compare women with breast hypertrophy who seek surgical treatment with those who do not. In addition, this latter group was compared with a group of control women without breast hypertrophy. Women seeking consultation for surgery were recruited from 14 plastic-surgery practices. Control subjects were recruited by advertisements in primary-care offices and newspapers. Women were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire that included the European Quality of Life (EuroQol) questionnaire, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Multidimensional Body Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ), the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire, and questions regarding breast-related symptoms, comorbidities, and bra size. Descriptive statistics were compiled for three groups of women: (1) hypertrophy patients seeking surgical care, (2) hypertrophy control subjects (those whose reported bra-cup size was a D or larger), and (3) normal control subjects (those whose reported bra-cup size was an A, B, or C). The multiple linear regression method was used to compare the health burdens across groups while adjusting for other variables. Two hundred ninety-one women seeking surgical care and 195 control subjects were enrolled in the study. The 184 control subjects with bra-cup information available were further separated into 88 hypertrophy control subjects and 96 normal control subjects. In the control group, bra-cup size was correlated with health-burden measures, whereas in the surgical candidates, it was not. When scores were compared across the three groups, significant differences were found in all health-burden measures. The surgical candidates scored more poorly on the EuroQol utility, McGill pain rating index, MBSRQ appearance evaluation, physical component scale of the SF-36, and on breast symptoms than did the two control groups. In addition, the hypertrophy control subjects scored more poorly than the normal control subjects. With multiple linear regression analysis incorporating important potential confounders, the poorer scores in the surgical candidates remained statistically significant. It was concluded that breast hypertrophy in those seeking surgical care and those not seeking surgery has a significant impact on women's quality of life as measured by validated and widely used self-report instruments including the EuroQol, MBSRQ, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and the SF-36. Likewise, a new assessment instrument for breast-related symptoms also demonstrated greater symptomatology in women with breast hypertrophy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11711933     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200111000-00024

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


  16 in total

1.  Satisfaction and quality-of-life issues in body contouring surgery patients: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Anne F Klassen; Stefan J Cano; Amie Scott; Jessica Johnson; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.129

2.  Understanding the Health Burden of Macromastia: Normative Data for the BREAST-Q Reduction Module.

Authors:  Lily R Mundy; Karen Homa; Anne F Klassen; Andrea L Pusic; Carolyn L Kerrigan
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Incidental Findings in Reduction Mammoplasty Specimens in Patients with No Prior History of Breast Cancer. An Analysis of 783 Specimens.

Authors:  Pedro Luiz Serrano Usón Junior; Donato Callegaro Filho; Diogo Diniz Gomes Bugano; Felipe Correa Geyer; Marcus Vinicius de Nigro Corpa; Paulo David Scatena Gonçalves; Sergio Daniel Simon; Rafael Aliosha Kaliks
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 3.201

4.  The role of oestrogen and progesterone receptors in gigantomastia.

Authors:  Anna Kasielska-Trojan; Marian Danilewicz; Jerzy Strużyna; Magdalena Bugaj; Bogusław Antoszewski
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.707

5.  Effects of breast reduction on pulmonary function.

Authors:  Yavuz Kececi; Seyhan Dagistan
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug

6.  Hyperplastic breast anomalies in the female adolescent breast.

Authors:  Erik M Wolfswinkel; Valerie Lemaine; William M Weathers; Chuma J Chike-Obi; Amy S Xue; Lior Heller
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.314

7.  Abdominal lipectomy: a prospective outcomes study.

Authors:  Nadine B Semer; Wan C Ho; Sharrie Mills; Bm Rajashekara; Jason R Taylor; Nguyen B Trung; Henry Young; Juris Kivuls
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2008

8.  Methodology and measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments: a prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery.

Authors:  Achilleas Thoma; Sheila Sprague; Karen Veltri; Eric Duku; William Furlong
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Reduction Mammoplasty in a Developing Country: A 10-year Review (2001-2010) at the National Orthopaedic Hospital, Enugu.

Authors:  Chimaobi Isiguzo; Sunday Iheuko Ogbonnaya; Anthonia O Udezue
Journal:  Niger J Surg       Date:  2015 Jan-Jun

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.