Lily R Mundy1,2, Karen Homa1,2, Anne F Klassen1,2, Andrea L Pusic1,2, Carolyn L Kerrigan1,2. 1. Durham, N.C.; Lebanon, N.H.; Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and New York, N.Y. 2. From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Duke University; the Section of Plastic Surgery, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center; McMaster University; and the Plastic and Reconstructive Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is a rigorously developed, well-validated, patient-reported outcome instrument with a module designed for evaluating breast augmentation outcomes. However, there are no published normative BREAST-Q scores, limiting interpretation. METHODS: Normative data were generated for the BREAST-Q Augmentation module by means of the Army of Women, an online community of women (with and without breast cancer) engaged in breast-cancer related research. Members were recruited by means of e-mail; women aged 18 years or older without a history of breast cancer or breast surgery were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics and a linear multivariate regression were performed. A separate analysis compared normative scores to findings from previously published BREAST-Q augmentation studies. RESULTS: The preoperative BREAST-Q Augmentation module was completed by 1211 women. Mean age was 54 ± 24 years, the mean body mass index was 27 ± 6 kg/m, and 39 percent (n = 467) had a bra cup size of D or greater. Mean scores were as follows: Satisfaction with Breasts, 54 ± 19; Psychosocial Well-being, 66 ± 20; Sexual Well-being, 49 ± 20; and Physical Well-being, 86 ± 15. Women with a body mass index of 30 kg/m or greater and bra cup size of D or greater had lower scores. In comparison with Army of Women scores, published BREAST-Q augmentation scores were lower before and higher after surgery for all scales except Physical Well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The Army of Women normative data represent breast-related satisfaction and well-being in women not actively seeking breast augmentation. These data may be used as normative comparison values for those seeking and undergoing surgery as we did, demonstrating the value of breast augmentation in this patient population.
BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is a rigorously developed, well-validated, patient-reported outcome instrument with a module designed for evaluating breast augmentation outcomes. However, there are no published normative BREAST-Q scores, limiting interpretation. METHODS: Normative data were generated for the BREAST-Q Augmentation module by means of the Army of Women, an online community of women (with and without breast cancer) engaged in breast-cancer related research. Members were recruited by means of e-mail; women aged 18 years or older without a history of breast cancer or breast surgery were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics and a linear multivariate regression were performed. A separate analysis compared normative scores to findings from previously published BREAST-Q augmentation studies. RESULTS: The preoperative BREAST-Q Augmentation module was completed by 1211 women. Mean age was 54 ± 24 years, the mean body mass index was 27 ± 6 kg/m, and 39 percent (n = 467) had a bra cup size of D or greater. Mean scores were as follows: Satisfaction with Breasts, 54 ± 19; Psychosocial Well-being, 66 ± 20; Sexual Well-being, 49 ± 20; and Physical Well-being, 86 ± 15. Women with a body mass index of 30 kg/m or greater and bra cup size of D or greater had lower scores. In comparison with Army of Women scores, published BREAST-Q augmentation scores were lower before and higher after surgery for all scales except Physical Well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The Army of Women normative data represent breast-related satisfaction and well-being in women not actively seeking breast augmentation. These data may be used as normative comparison values for those seeking and undergoing surgery as we did, demonstrating the value of breast augmentation in this patient population.
Authors: Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kai M M Saariniemi; Marjo H Helle; Asko M Salmi; Hilkka H Peltoniemi; Pia Charpentier; Hannu O M Kuokkanen Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 2.326
Authors: Philip J Hanwright; Elliot M Hirsch; Akhil K Seth; Geoffrey Chow; John Smetona; Colton McNichols; Jessica A Gaido; Neil A Fine; Karl Y Bilimoria; John Y S Kim Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Stefan Cano; Anne F Klassen; Amie Scott; Achilleas Thoma; David Feeny; Andrea Pusic Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.217
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
Authors: Annette L Stanton; Marion E Morra; Michael A Diefenbach; Suzanne M Miller; Rosemarie Slevin Perocchia; Peter C Raich; Linda Fleisher; Kuang-Yi Wen; Zung Vu Tran; Nihal E Mohamed; Roshini George; Mary Anne Bright; Alfred C Marcus Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Simone La Padula; Rosita Pensato; Francesco D'Andrea; Ludovica de Gregorio; Concetta Errico; Umberto Rega; Luigi Canta; Chiara Pizza; Giovanni Roccaro; Raphaelle Billon; Endri Dibra; Jean Paul Meningaud; Barbara Hersant Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Nadia Sadok; Liesbeth Jansen; Martine D de Zoete; Berend van der Lei; Paul M N Werker; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-12-23