Literature DB >> 32842095

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.

Akhil K Seth1, Peter G Cordeiro1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Outcomes following prosthetic breast reconstruction have been well studied. However, the majority of studies are limited by short-term follow-up and a lack of aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes. This study objectively examines long-term surgeon- and patient-reported outcomes following two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction from 1994 to 2016 performed by the senior author (P.G.C.), with at least 1-year follow-up after implant exchange, were reviewed retrospectively. Long-term surgeon-reported outcomes, including aesthetic and capsular contracture scores, and patient-reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q, were recorded at each outpatient visit and analyzed over the 12-year follow-up period.
RESULTS: Retrospective review revealed 2284 patients, or 3489 breasts, that fit the inclusion criteria. Aesthetic scores and capsular contracture rates remained stable over the entire follow-up period. Subset analysis demonstrated that bilateral and nonirradiated reconstructions consistently had the highest aesthetic scores, whereas unilateral irradiated breasts had the lowest. Irradiated breasts consistently had high rates of capsular contracture, although the extent of contracture improved over time in all patients. Patient-reported BREAST-Q scores showed either stability or improvement over time in all patients. Irradiated and nonirradiated patients demonstrated comparable long-term satisfaction with outcomes despite significant differences in satisfaction with their breasts.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors' study, the largest of its kind, demonstrates that prosthetic breast reconstruction outcomes do not deteriorate over time. This stability is apparent in both long-term surgeon- and patient-reported outcomes data measured in the same patients. These results contradict the surgical dogma surrounding prosthetic breast reconstruction and therefore should be given significant consideration when counseling patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32842095      PMCID: PMC8289123          DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  35 in total

1.  Use of autologous and microsurgical breast reconstruction by U.S. plastic surgeons.

Authors:  Anita R Kulkarni; Erika Davis Sears; Dunya M Atisha; Amy K Alderman
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 2.  Breast reconstruction after breast cancer.

Authors:  Joseph M Serletti; Joshua Fosnot; Jonas A Nelson; Joseph J Disa; Louis P Bucky
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Analysis of risk factors for complications in expander/implant breast reconstruction by stage of reconstruction.

Authors:  Elliot M Hirsch; Akhil K Seth; John Y S Kim; Gregory A Dumanian; Thomas A Mustoe; Robert D Galiano; Neil A Fine
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Kristy L Kummerow; Liping Du; David F Penson; Yu Shyr; Mary A Hooks
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 14.766

5.  Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Katherine B Santosa; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 14.766

6.  Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Safe Alternative to Submuscular Prosthetic Reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

Authors:  Hani Sbitany; Merisa Piper; Rachel Lentz
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Immediate Two-Stage Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction Failure: Radiation Is Not the Only Culprit.

Authors:  Thomas C Lam; Robert Borotkanics; Frank Hsieh; James Salinas; John Boyages
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.730

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.  Breast Reconstruction Post Mastectomy: Patient Satisfaction and Decision Making.

Authors:  Sally K Ng; Rowena M Hare; Ronny J Kuang; Katrina M Smith; Belinda J Brown; David J Hunter-Smith
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.539

10.  Current Approaches to Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Maurice Y Nahabedian
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.