Literature DB >> 15083014

TRAM flap versus nonautologous breast reconstruction: what do patients really think?

Brendan J Fogarty1, Alistair P Brown, Roy Miller, Khalid Khan.   

Abstract

Although there have been many reports of aesthetic outcomes after breast reconstruction, there have been comparatively few studies examining patient satisfaction and related subjective issues. The variables affecting satisfaction are only beginning to be understood, and patient satisfaction issues were explored in a more homogeneous patient population. A questionnaire surveying overall and aesthetic satisfaction, postoperative recuperation time, and symptoms was used to elicit candid patient responses. Fifty-seven patients replied (86 percent response rate), of whom 38 had undergone transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap (pedicled, n = 29; free, n = 9) reconstruction and 19 had undergone nonautologous reconstruction. Although the median patient satisfaction score was higher for the TRAM flap group, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.92). Recuperation was significantly longer for the TRAM flap group, with only 47 percent of patients being able to resume full activities within 2 months after the surgical procedure, compared with 95 percent of the implant group (p = 0.002). Of the TRAM flap-treated patients, 50 percent described some postoperative abdominal weakness, but only 5 percent of all TRAM flap-treated patients said that abdominal weakness was actually a functional problem. Our results suggest that patients may derive equal satisfaction with the two methods of reconstruction. The postoperative recuperation time after TRAM flap reconstruction is significantly longer than that after nonautologous procedures, although the postoperative abdominal weakness after TRAM flap reconstruction is not as significant a clinical problem as previously thought. The patient-derived information on satisfaction should assist both surgeons and patients in matching reconstructive options with patients' expectations and lifestyle.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15083014     DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000110327.77037.74

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


  5 in total

1.  Elective Revisions after Breast Reconstruction: Results from the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Sophocles H Voineskos; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  The versatility of the pedicled vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in oncologic patients.

Authors:  Adrien Daigeler; Maria Simidjiiska-Belyaeva; Daniel Drücke; Ole Goertz; Tobias Hirsch; Christian Soimaru; Marcus Lehnhardt; Hans-Ulrich Steinau
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-07-16       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy.

Authors:  Kirsty Roberts; Nicola Mills; Chris Metcalfe; Athene Lane; Clare Clement; William Hollingworth; Jodi Taylor; Chris Holcombe; Joanna Skillman; Katherine Fairhurst; Lisa Whisker; Ramsey Cutress; Steven Thrush; Patricia Fairbrother; Shelley Potter
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study.

Authors:  Shelley Potter; Nicola Mills; Simon J Cawthorn; Jenny Donovan; Jane M Blazeby
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  The iBRA (implant breast reconstruction evaluation) study: protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial comparing new techniques of implant-based breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Shelley Potter; Elizabeth J Conroy; Paula R Williamson; Steven Thrush; Lisa J Whisker; Joanna M Skillman; Nicola L P Barnes; Ramsey I Cutress; Elizabeth M Teasdale; Nicola Mills; Senthurun Mylvaganam; Olivier A Branford; Katherina McEvoy; Abhilash Jain; Matthew D Gardiner; Jane M Blazeby; Christopher Holcombe
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2016-08-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.