Navid Mohamadpour Toyserkani1, Mads Gustaf Jørgensen2, Siavosh Tabatabaeifar2, Tine Damsgaard3, Jens Ahm Sørensen2. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: navid.toyserkani@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Breast reconstruction following mastectomy can increase the quality of life of patients. Reconstruction methods can broadly be divided into implant-based and autologous tissue reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes following breast reconstruction are one of the most important success parameters. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the two methods using the recognized Breast-Q questionnaire. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE databases. Meta-analysis was performed on the five most commonly reported Breast-Q modules. RevMan 5.3 was used for statistical analysis. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 219 studies of which nine studies were included in the analysis, yielding 2129 implant-based and 825 autologous breast reconstructions. Overall satisfaction with outcome as well as breast was significantly higher among patients with autologous breast reconstructions (mean Breast-Q difference between the two groups was 9.82 [3.09, 16.54], p = 0.004, and 10.33 [95% CI 5.93, 14.74], p<0.00001, respectively). Sexual and psychosocial well-being was higher among autologous breast reconstructions. There was no difference in the physical well-being. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient-reported outcomes of implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction. We found that autologous reconstruction yields a higher satisfaction with overall outcome and breast. These findings can aid clinicians when discussing breast reconstruction options with patients.
OBJECTIVE: Breast reconstruction following mastectomy can increase the quality of life of patients. Reconstruction methods can broadly be divided into implant-based and autologous tissue reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes following breast reconstruction are one of the most important success parameters. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the two methods using the recognized Breast-Q questionnaire. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE databases. Meta-analysis was performed on the five most commonly reported Breast-Q modules. RevMan 5.3 was used for statistical analysis. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 219 studies of which nine studies were included in the analysis, yielding 2129 implant-based and 825 autologous breast reconstructions. Overall satisfaction with outcome as well as breast was significantly higher among patients with autologous breast reconstructions (mean Breast-Q difference between the two groups was 9.82 [3.09, 16.54], p = 0.004, and 10.33 [95% CI 5.93, 14.74], p<0.00001, respectively). Sexual and psychosocial well-being was higher among autologous breast reconstructions. There was no difference in the physical well-being. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient-reported outcomes of implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction. We found that autologous reconstruction yields a higher satisfaction with overall outcome and breast. These findings can aid clinicians when discussing breast reconstruction options with patients.
Authors: Ralf Berger; Jurandir Marcondes Ribas Filho; Marcelo Augusto de Souza; Pedro Henrique de Paula; João Gabriel Cavazzani Doubek; Rafael de Castro E Souza Pires; Paulo Afonso Nunes Nassif; Eduardo Nascimento Silva Journal: Acta Cir Bras Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 1.564
Authors: Helena Sophie Leitner; Reinhard Pauzenberger; Ines Ana Ederer; Christine Radtke; Stefan Hacker Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Kshipra Hemal; Carter J Boyd; Jonathan M Bekisz; Ara A Salibian; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-09-22