Literature DB >> 31356276

Long-term Patient-reported Outcomes Following Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: An 8-year Examination of 3268 Patients.

Jonas A Nelson1, Robert J Allen1, Thais Polanco1, Meghana Shamsunder1, Aadit R Patel1, Colleen M McCarthy1, Evan Matros1, Joseph H Dayan1, Joseph J Disa, Peter G Cordeiro1, Babak J Mehrara1, Andrea L Pusic2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in satisfaction and health-related quality of life (QOL) following post-mastectomy reconstruction (PMR) using the BREAST-Q, comparing PROs from patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) or autologous breast reconstruction (ABR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple studies have demonstrated growth in mastectomy rates and concurrent increase in PMR utilization. However, most studies examining PMR PROs focus on short postoperative time periods-mainly within 2 years.
METHODS: BREAST-Q scores from IBR or ABR patients at a tertiary center were prospectively collected from 2009 to 2017. Mean scores and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for satisfaction with breast, satisfaction with outcome, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being of the chest, and sexual well-being. Satisfaction with breasts and physical well-being of the chest were compared using regression models at postoperative years 1, 3, 5, and 7.
RESULTS: Overall, 3268 patients were included, with 336 undergoing ABR and 2932 undergoing IBR. Regression analysis demonstrated that ABR patients had greater postoperative satisfaction with breast scores at all timepoints compared with IBR patients. Postoperative radiation and mental illness adversely impacted satisfaction with breast scores. Furthermore, mental illness impacted physical wellbeing of the chest at all timepoints. IBR patients had satisfaction scores that remained stable over the study period.
CONCLUSION: This study presents the largest prospective examination of PROs in PMR to date. Patients who opted for ABR had significantly higher satisfaction with their breast and QOL at each assessed time point, but IBR patients had stable long-term satisfaction and QOL postoperatively.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31356276     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003467

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  26 in total

1.  Understanding Preoperative Breast Satisfaction among Patients Undergoing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction: BREAST-Q Insights.

Authors:  Meghana G Shamsunder; Thais O Polanco; Colleen M McCarthy; Robert J Allen; Evan Matros; Michelle Coriddi; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea Pusic; Jonas A Nelson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Perceived financial decline related to breast reconstruction following mastectomy in a diverse population-based cohort.

Authors:  Nicholas L Berlin; Paul Abrahamse; Adeyiza O Momoh; Steven J Katz; Reshma Jagsi; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Functional Cerebral MRI Evaluation of Integration of Breast Reconstruction into the Body Schema.

Authors:  Claudia Régis; Marie-Cécile Le Deley; Emilie Bogart; Clémence Leguillette; Loic Boulanger; Marie- Pierre Chauvet; Romain Viard; Julien Thery; Romain Bosc; Christine Delmaire
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Comparison of short-term outcomes between pedicled- and free-flap autologous breast reconstruction: a nationwide inpatient database study in Japan.

Authors:  Ryo Karakawa; Takaaki Konishi; Hidehiko Yoshimatsu; Yuma Fuse; Yohei Hashimoto; Hiroki Matsui; Kiyohide Fushimi; Tomoyuki Yano; Hideo Yasunaga
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 3.307

5.  Stability of Long-Term Outcomes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: An Evaluation of 12-Year Surgeon- and Patient-Reported Outcomes in 3489 Nonirradiated and Irradiated Implants.

Authors:  Akhil K Seth; Peter G Cordeiro
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Variation in Payment per Work Relative Value Unit for Breast Reconstruction and Nonbreast Microsurgical Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claims Database Analysis.

Authors:  Meghana G Shamsunder; Clifford C Sheckter; Avraham Sheinin; David Rubin; Nicholas L Berlin; Babak Mehrara; Evan Matros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Comparisons of Therapeutic and Aesthetic Effects of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Biological Matrix.

Authors:  Peng Gao; Zhongzhao Wang; Xiangyi Kong; Xiangyu Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Litigation in breast surgery: unique insights from the English National Health Service experience.

Authors:  R L O'Connell; N Patani; J T Machin; T W R Briggs; T Irvine; F A MacNeill
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-05-07

9.  The impact of co-surgeons on complication rates and healthcare cost in patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction: analysis of 8680 patients.

Authors:  Malke Asaad; Ying Xu; Carrie K Chu; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Alexander F Mericli
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-08-16       Impact factor: 4.872

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.