Joshua M Leonardis1, Daniel A Lyons1, Kelley M Kidwell1, Aviram M Giladi1, David B Lipps1, Adeyiza O Momoh1. 1. From the School of Kinesiology, the Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, and the Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan; the Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Michigan Health System; and The Curtis National Hand Center, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction techniques differentially influence patient-reported physical and psychosocial well-being. Objective measures of shoulder biomechanics, which are uniquely influenced by reconstruction technique, may provide insight into the influence of reconstruction technique on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Robot-assisted measures of shoulder strength and stiffness, and five validated patient-reported outcomes surveys were obtained from 46 women who had undergone mastectomy and a combined latissimus dorsi flap plus subpectoral implant, subpectoral implant, or DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Mediation analyses examined the role of functional shoulder biomechanics as a mediator between reconstruction technique and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Reconstruction technique affected shoulder biomechanics, with latissimus dorsi flap plus subpectoral implant patients exhibiting reduced shoulder strength and stiffness compared with subpectoral implant and DIEP flap patients. Increasing external rotation strength was predictive of improved upper extremity function (p = 0.04). Increasing shoulder stiffness while at rest was predictive of worsened upper extremity function (p = 0.03). Increasing shoulder stiffness at rest and during contraction was indicative of worsened psychosocial well-being (all p ≤ 0.02). Reconstruction technique did not predict survey scores of function directly, or when mediated by functional shoulder biomechanics. CONCLUSIONS: In the current cohort, latissimus dorsi plus subpectoral implant breast reconstructions significantly reduced shoulder strength and stiffness when compared with the other techniques. In addition, objective measures of shoulder biomechanics were predictive of patient-reported physical and psychosocial well-being. The results emphasize the need for improved perioperative screening for shoulder functional deficits in patients undergoing breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESITON/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction techniques differentially influence patient-reported physical and psychosocial well-being. Objective measures of shoulder biomechanics, which are uniquely influenced by reconstruction technique, may provide insight into the influence of reconstruction technique on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Robot-assisted measures of shoulder strength and stiffness, and five validated patient-reported outcomes surveys were obtained from 46 women who had undergone mastectomy and a combined latissimus dorsi flap plus subpectoral implant, subpectoral implant, or DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Mediation analyses examined the role of functional shoulder biomechanics as a mediator between reconstruction technique and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Reconstruction technique affected shoulder biomechanics, with latissimus dorsi flap plus subpectoral implant patients exhibiting reduced shoulder strength and stiffness compared with subpectoral implant and DIEP flap patients. Increasing external rotation strength was predictive of improved upper extremity function (p = 0.04). Increasing shoulder stiffness while at rest was predictive of worsened upper extremity function (p = 0.03). Increasing shoulder stiffness at rest and during contraction was indicative of worsened psychosocial well-being (all p ≤ 0.02). Reconstruction technique did not predict survey scores of function directly, or when mediated by functional shoulder biomechanics. CONCLUSIONS: In the current cohort, latissimus dorsi plus subpectoral implant breast reconstructions significantly reduced shoulder strength and stiffness when compared with the other techniques. In addition, objective measures of shoulder biomechanics were predictive of patient-reported physical and psychosocial well-being. The results emphasize the need for improved perioperative screening for shoulder functional deficits in patients undergoing breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESITON/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
Authors: Alexis A Wright; Craig A Wassinger; Mason Frank; Lori A Michener; Eric J Hegedus Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Joshua M Leonardis; Daniel A Lyons; Aviram M Giladi; Adeyiza O Momoh; David B Lipps Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: M P Schijven; A J J M Vingerhoets; H J T Rutten; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; R M H Roumen; M E van Bussel; A C Voogd Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Jing Jiang; Adeyiza O Momoh; Amy Alderman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Kronowitz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Virginia M Boquiren; Thomas F Hack; Roanne L Thomas; Anna Towers; Winkle B Kwan; Andrea Tilley; Elizabeth Quinlan; Baukje Miedema Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 4.872