Literature DB >> 20517080

Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques.

Janet H Yueh1, Sumner A Slavin, Tolulope Adesiyun, Theodore T Nyame, Shiva Gautam, Donald J Morris, Adam M Tobias, Bernard T Lee.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing literature on patient satisfaction in breast reconstruction, few studies have compared perforator flaps with the more commonly practiced methods. The authors compared four reconstructive techniques and identified factors influencing patient satisfaction.
METHODS: All patients undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction between 1999 and 2006 at a single academic institution were included in our study. A total of 583 patients with tissue expander/implant, latissimus, pedicle transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM), and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstructions received a validated questionnaire on satisfaction, health-related quality of life, and sociodemographic data.
RESULTS: Patient response was 75 percent, with 439 completed questionnaires including 87 tissue expander/implant, 116 latissimus, and 119 pedicle TRAM and 117 DIEP flap patients. DIEP patients had the highest level of general satisfaction at 80 percent, and pedicle TRAM patients had the highest level of aesthetic satisfaction at 77 percent (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Health-related quality of life and length of time since surgery were identified as significant covariates influencing patient satisfaction. After logistic regression analysis, autologous reconstruction had significantly higher general and aesthetic satisfaction than implant-based reconstruction (p = 0.017 and p < 0.001). Among the autologous reconstructions, abdominal-based flaps had significantly higher general and aesthetic satisfaction than latissimus flaps (p = 0.011 and p = 0.016). When comparing the abdominal-based reconstructions, general and aesthetic satisfaction were no longer statistically significant between pedicle TRAM and DIEP flaps (p = 0.659 and p = 0.198).
CONCLUSIONS: Autologous, abdominal-based reconstructions had the highest satisfaction rates across all four groups. After logistic regression analysis, differences in patient satisfaction between pedicle TRAM and DIEP flap reconstruction were no longer observed. Discussing satisfaction outcomes with patients will help them make educated decisions about breast reconstruction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20517080     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181cb6351

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


  68 in total

1.  Impact of Unilateral versus Bilateral Breast Reconstruction on Procedure Choices and Outcomes.

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

Review 2.  [Microsurgical techniques for breast reconstruction].

Authors:  M Pelzer; M A Reichenberger; G Germann
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Recent advances in reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Takashi Nakatsuka
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Tracking the aesthetic outcomes of prosthetic breast reconstructions that have complications.

Authors:  Lauren M Mioton; Akhil Seth; Jessica Gaido; Neil A Fine; John Ys Kim
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.947

Review 5.  Trends and concepts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Hana Farhangkhoee; Evan Matros; Joseph Disa
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-02-14       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 6.  Breast Reconstruction Following Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Bernd Gerber; Mario Marx; Michael Untch; Andree Faridi
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  The Influence of Physician Payments on the Method of Breast Reconstruction: A National Claims Analysis.

Authors:  Clifford C Sheckter; Hina J Panchal; Shantanu N Razdan; David Rubin; Day Yi; Joseph J Disa; Babak Mehrara; Evan Matros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Microsurgical refinements with the use of internal mammary (IM) perforators as recipient vessels in transverse upper gracilis (TUG) autologous breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Samer Saour; Guido Libondi; Venkat Ramakrishnan
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-08

9.  Trends and variation in use of breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy in the United States.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Jing Jiang; Adeyiza O Momoh; Amy Alderman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Kronowitz; Benjamin D Smith
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  The BREAST-Q in surgical research: A review of the literature 2009-2015.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.