BACKGROUND: Previously, we found patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction at postoperative year 1 significantly higher in the autogenous tissue compared with the expander/implant population. But breast reconstructive procedures have different "aging" processes, and the point at which outcomes stabilize is unclear. So we evaluated patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction at postoperative year 2 and compared the results with those from our previous study. STUDY DESIGN: As part of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study, women undergoing mastectomy reconstruction (including expander/implants and pedicle and free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps [TRAM]) were prospectively evaluated. Preoperatively and at postoperative years 1 and 2, women completed a questionnaire that collected a variety of validated health status information. The postoperative questionnaire had an additional seven items assessing both general and esthetic satisfaction as separate subscales. To assess the effects of procedure on satisfaction and control for possible confounding, multiple logistic regression was used. RESULTS: At year 2, patients with TRAM flaps (both free and pedicle) continued to have higher levels of esthetic satisfaction compared with expander/implant patients (odds ratio 2.8, p < 0.01). But no significant differences were appreciated in esthetic satisfaction between women with free and pedicle TRAM flaps. In regard to general satisfaction, the type of reconstruction (expander/implant, pedicle TRAM, and free TRAM) had no statistically significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: At postoperative year 2, procedural differences initially found in women's general satisfaction with breast reconstruction diminish. Specifically, women with pedicle TRAM flaps, free TRAM flaps, and expander/implants had similar levels of general satisfaction. But at year 2, patients continue to be more esthetically satisfied with autogenous tissue than with expander/implant reconstructions.
BACKGROUND: Previously, we found patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction at postoperative year 1 significantly higher in the autogenous tissue compared with the expander/implant population. But breast reconstructive procedures have different "aging" processes, and the point at which outcomes stabilize is unclear. So we evaluated patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction at postoperative year 2 and compared the results with those from our previous study. STUDY DESIGN: As part of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study, women undergoing mastectomy reconstruction (including expander/implants and pedicle and free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps [TRAM]) were prospectively evaluated. Preoperatively and at postoperative years 1 and 2, women completed a questionnaire that collected a variety of validated health status information. The postoperative questionnaire had an additional seven items assessing both general and esthetic satisfaction as separate subscales. To assess the effects of procedure on satisfaction and control for possible confounding, multiple logistic regression was used. RESULTS: At year 2, patients with TRAM flaps (both free and pedicle) continued to have higher levels of esthetic satisfaction compared with expander/implant patients (odds ratio 2.8, p < 0.01). But no significant differences were appreciated in esthetic satisfaction between women with free and pedicle TRAM flaps. In regard to general satisfaction, the type of reconstruction (expander/implant, pedicle TRAM, and free TRAM) had no statistically significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: At postoperative year 2, procedural differences initially found in women's general satisfaction with breast reconstruction diminish. Specifically, women with pedicle TRAM flaps, free TRAM flaps, and expander/implants had similar levels of general satisfaction. But at year 2, patients continue to be more esthetically satisfied with autogenous tissue than with expander/implant reconstructions.
Authors: Erin M Taylor; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic; Ji Qi; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Gretchen E Guldbrandsen; Yoon S Chun Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Jing Jiang; Adeyiza O Momoh; Amy Alderman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Lori J Pierce; Steven J Kronowitz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Adeyiza O Momoh; Ji Qi; Jennifer B Hamill; Jessica Billig; Hyungjin M Kim; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sheina A Macadam; Toni Zhong; Katie Weichman; Michael Papsdorf; Peter A Lennox; Alexes Hazen; Evan Matros; Joseph Disa; Babak Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Devon Livingston-Rosanoff; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Polly A Newcomb; Lee G Wilke Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Wess A Cohen; Lily R Mundy; Tiffany N S Ballard; Anne Klassen; Stefan J Cano; John Browne; Andrea L Pusic Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 2.740