Literature DB >> 24831775

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after microsurgical abdominal flap versus staged expander/implant breast reconstruction: a critical study of unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using patient-reported outcomes instrument BREAST-Q.

Chunjun Liu1, Yan Zhuang, Arash Momeni, Jie Luan, Michael T Chung, Eric Wright, Gordon K Lee.   

Abstract

Staged expander-implant breast reconstruction (EIBR) and microsurgical abdominal flap breast reconstruction (MAFBR) are the most common modes of breast reconstruction (BR) in the United States. Whether the mode of breast reconstruction has an impact on patient quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction remains a question. A retrospective study was conducted identifying a population of 119 patients who underwent unilateral immediate BR. Only patients who were eligible for either EIBR or MAFBR based on preoperative characteristics were included in the study. The following parameters were retrieved: demographics, mode of reconstruction, cancer, recovery, QoL, and patient satisfaction. The latter two parameters were determined using the BREAST-Q BR module questionnaire. Two-way analysis of variance with mode of reconstruction and occurrence of complication as independent variables was used to determine the effect on patient satisfaction and QoL. The association between mode of reconstruction and patient response with each item of the QoL and satisfaction survey domains was analyzed. The overall response rate was 62.2 %. Non-respondents and respondents did not significantly differ in demographics, surgery type, cancer staging, adjuvant therapy, and complication rate. Age and BMI were significantly higher in MAFBR, while level of education was higher in EIBR. MAFBR had higher scores in psychosocial and sexual wellbeing, satisfaction with outcome, breast, information, and plastic surgeon when compared with patients who underwent EIBR. For patients eligible for both MAFBR and EIBR, MAFBR is associated with higher levels of satisfaction and QoL. Comprehensive pre-operative information of pros and cons of both modes of BR is crucial for patients to make a well-informed decision, thus, resulting in higher levels of satisfaction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24831775     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-014-2981-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  24 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

2.  Different procedures should be on offer.

Authors:  Jochen-Frederick Hernekamp; Thomas Kremer; Ulrich Kneser; Jörg Heil; Christof Sohn
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  Breast Cancer and Reconstruction: Normative Data for Interpreting the BREAST-Q.

Authors:  Lily R Mundy; Karen Homa; Anne F Klassen; Andrea L Pusic; Carolyn L Kerrigan
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Comparison of Four Abdominally Based Autologous Reconstruction Methods.

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

Review 5.  Minimally invasive robotic breast reconstruction surgery.

Authors:  Sarah N Bishop; Jesse C Selber
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-01

6.  Breast reconstruction and quality of life five years after cancer diagnosis: VICAN French National cohort.

Authors:  Memoli Victoria; Bannier Marie; Rey Dominique; Alleaume Caroline; Ben Diane Marc-Karim; Mancini Julien; Lauzier Sophie; Bouhnik Anne-Déborah
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Patient-Reported Outcomes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Alone or in Combination with a Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh - A Detailed Analysis of the BREAST-Q and Overview of the Literature.

Authors:  M Dieterich; J Angres; J Stubert; A Stachs; T Reimer; B Gerber
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.915

Review 8.  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

9.  The Evolution of Breast Satisfaction and Well-Being after Breast Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Comparison to the Norm.

Authors:  Lily R Mundy; Laura H Rosenberger; Christel N Rushing; Dunya Atisha; Andrea L Pusic; Scott T Hollenbeck; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Biological Matrix-Assisted One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.

Authors:  Peng Gao; Ping Bai; Yinpeng Ren; Xiangyi Kong; Zhongzhao Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 2.326

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.