Literature DB >> 26076217

Patient Satisfaction and Nipple-Areola Sensitivity After Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction in a High Breast Cancer Risk Population: Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy.

Victorien M T van Verschuer1, Marc A M Mureau, Jessica P Gopie, Elvira L Vos, Cornelis Verhoef, Marian B E Menke-Pluijmers, Linetta B Koppert.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) both are associated with major risk reduction in women with high breast cancer risk. Skin-sparing mastectomy followed by nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction is standard of care, but NSM is increasingly being performed. Preservation of the NAC in NSM may increase patient satisfaction. Therefore, we measured NAC sensitivity after NSM and compared patient satisfaction as well as body image after SSM with NSM.
METHODS: Women who underwent prophylactic bilateral SSM or NSM and immediate implant breast reconstruction between 2002 and 2012 were eligible. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Breast-Q reconstruction questionnaire, body image using Hopwood's body image scale (BIS), and satisfaction with the (reconstructed) NAC using a study-specific questionnaire. In the NSM group, NAC sensitivity was assessed using Semmes Weinstein monofilaments with a 5-point scale and compared with NAC sensitivity in a nonoperated control group.
RESULTS: The SSM group comprised 25 women (50 SSMs) and the NSM group 20 women (39 NSMs). Median follow-up was 65 months in the SSM group compared with 27 months in the NSM group (P < 0.01). In univariable analyses, Breast-Q scores were favorable in the SSM group compared with the NSM group with trends for higher "satisfaction with breasts" (66.2 vs 56.6; P = 0.06) and "satisfaction with outcome" (76.1 vs 61.5; P = 0.09). Mean BIS score of 7.1/30 in the SSM group and 9.3/30 in the NSM group (P = 0.35). Adjusted for follow-up, there were no significant differences in Breast-Q scores, nor in BIS scores. Interestingly, satisfaction with the (reconstructed) NAC was similar after SSM and NSM. Nipple-areola complex sensitivity was lower in the NSM group (mean score, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.3) compared with the control group (mean score, 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-4.9; P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Breast-Q scores regarding satisfaction with breasts and overall outcome were in favor of the SSM group. Residual NAC sensitivity after NSM was low. This suggests that SSM followed by NAC reconstruction is a balanced alternative to NSM. We observed no significant differences in body image and NAC-specific satisfaction between the NSM and SSM groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26076217     DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000366

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Plast Surg        ISSN: 0148-7043            Impact factor:   1.539


  19 in total

1.  Patient satisfaction with nipple-sparing mastectomy: A prospective study of patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q.

Authors:  Michael A Howard; Mark Sisco; Katharine Yao; David J Winchester; Ermilo Barrera; Jeremy Warner; Jennifer Jaffe; Peter Hulick; Kristine Kuchta; Andrea L Pusic; Stephen F Sener
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.454

2.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Incisions for Cancer Extirpation Prospective Cohort Trial: Perfusion, Complications, and Patient Outcomes.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Odom; Rajiv P Parikh; Grace Um; Simone W Kantola; Amy E Cyr; Julie A Margenthaler; Marissa M Tenenbaum; Terence M Myckatyn
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Prospective evaluation of skin and nipple-areola sensation and patient satisfaction after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  Lesly A Dossett; Janell Lowe; Weihong Sun; M C Lee; Paul D Smith; Paul B Jacobsen; Christine Laronga
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 3.454

4.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Does Saving the Nipple Impact Short- and Long-Term Patient Satisfaction?

Authors:  Bridget N Kelly; Heather R Faulkner; Barbara L Smith; Jenna E Korotkin; Conor R Lanahan; Carson Brown; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht; Kevin S Hughes; T Salewa Oseni; Amy S Colwell; Suzanne B Coopey
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-08       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 5.  The altering in sensory sensitivity: a current issue of female breast surgery.

Authors:  Tong Zhu; Yi Jiang; Ting Liu; Jinqi Xue; Nan Niu; Jiawen Bu; Mingxin Liu; Caigang Liu; Xudong Zhu; Xi Gu
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 3.642

Review 6.  Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: Review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications.

Authors:  Viviana Galimberti; Elisa Vicini; Giovanni Corso; Consuelo Morigi; Sabrina Fontana; Virgilio Sacchini; Paolo Veronesi
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 4.380

7.  A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Conventional Mastectomy with Reconstruction.

Authors:  Anya Romanoff; Emily C Zabor; Michelle Stempel; Virgilio Sacchini; Andrea Pusic; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Influences on Satisfaction with Reconstructed Breasts and Intimacy in Younger Women Following Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: a Qualitative Analysis.

Authors:  Rachael Glassey; Moira O'Connor; Angela Ives; Christobel Saunders; Sarah J Hardcastle
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2018-08

Review 9.  Clinical outcomes of patients after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction based on the expander/implant technique.

Authors:  Uhi Toh; Miki Takenaka; Nobutaka Iwakuma; Yoshito Akagi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 10.  Hereditary Gastric and Breast Cancer Syndromes Related to CDH1 Germline Mutation: A Multidisciplinary Clinical Review.

Authors:  Giovanni Corso; Giacomo Montagna; Joana Figueiredo; Carlo La Vecchia; Uberto Fumagalli Romario; Maria Sofia Fernandes; Susana Seixas; Franco Roviello; Cristina Trovato; Elena Guerini-Rocco; Nicola Fusco; Gabriella Pravettoni; Serena Petrocchi; Anna Rotili; Giulia Massari; Francesca Magnoni; Francesca De Lorenzi; Manuela Bottoni; Viviana Galimberti; João Miguel Sanches; Mariarosaria Calvello; Raquel Seruca; Bernardo Bonanni
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.