Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Three Different Types of Breast Reconstruction with Correlation to the Clinical Data 5 Years Postoperatively

  • Original Article
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to compare long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes in terms of satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following postmastectomy breast reconstruction using BREAST-Q in patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction, abdominal-based autologous reconstruction, and combined reconstruction (with implant and LD flap or implant and TDAP flap).

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Patients had undergone delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction and completed the BREAST-Q reconstruction module. The results were related to the clinical data obtained from the clinic’s patient record system. A 5-year examination was included. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated. Kruskal–Wallis test, Chi-square goodness of fit test and Chi-square test were used for the statistical analysis.

Results

Overall, 110 patients (n = 24 implant, n  = 38 autologous, n = 48 combination) were included. Patients with autologous reconstruction reported greater postoperative satisfaction with breasts (p < 0.001), satisfaction with outcome (p < 0.001), psychosocial well-being (p = 0.001), and sexual well-being (p = 0.051).

Conclusion

This study represents a comprehensive long-term examination of postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Autologous reconstruction patients had higher postoperative satisfaction and HRQoL than patients receiving other types of reconstruction despite having more intense oncological therapy and the highest mean number of follow-up surgical procedures.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tsichlaki A, Fleming PS (2019) Prioritising patients in research and practice:Why and how? J Orthod 46:17–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pirro O, Mestak O, Vindigni V, Sukop A, Hromadkova V, Nguyenova A, Vitova L, Bassetto F (2017) Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after implant versus autologous tissue breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5:1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Xiu BQ, Guo R, Yang BL, Zhang Q, Wang J, Su YH, Li L, Ji WR, Zhang YY, Cao AY, Shao ZM, Wu J (2019) Current trends of breast reconstruction after mastectomy in China: a cross-sectional study. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 41:546–551

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cano SJ, Klassen A, Pusic AL (2019) The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:98–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Potter S, Mills N, Cawthorn S, Wilson S, Blazeby J (2013) Exploring inequalities in access to care and the provision of choice to women seeking breast reconstruction surgery: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer 109(5):1181–1191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Retrouvey H, Zhong T, Gagliardi AR, PhD Baxter NN MD, Webster F (2019) How patient acceptability affects access to breast reconstruction: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 9(9):e029048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nelson JA, Allen RJ Jr, Polanco T, Shamsunder M, Patel AR, McCarthy CM, Matros E, Dayan JH, Disa JJ, Cordeiro PG, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL (2019) Long-term patient-reported outcomes following postmastectomy breast reconstruction: an 8-year examination of 3268 patients. Ann Surg 270:473–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu LQ, Branford OA, Mehigan S (2018) BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6:1904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Flanagan MR, Zabor EC, Romanoff A, Fuzesi S, Stempel M, Mehrara BJ, Morrow M, Pusic AL, Gemignani ML (2019) A comparison of patient-reported outcomes after breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy with implant breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 26:3133–3140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu T, Freijs C, Klein HJ, Feinbaum A, Svee A, Lorenzo AR, Liss A, Acosta R, Mani M (2018) Patients with abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction a decade after surgery: a comprehensive long-term follow-up study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71:1301–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:345–353

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. de Blacam C, Healy C, Quinn L, Spillane C, Boyle T, Eadie PA, Connolly EM, O’Donovan D (2016) Is satisfaction with surgeon a determining factor in patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69:1248–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN, Klassen A, Cano SJ, Browne J, Pusic AL (2016) The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009-2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69:149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sugrue R, MacGregor G, Sugrue M, Curran S, Murphy L (2013) An evaluation of patient reported outcomes following breast reconstruction utilizing Breast Q. Breast 22:158–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Macadam SA, Zhong T, Weichman K, Papsdorf M, Lennox PA, Hazen A, Matros E, Disa J, Mehrara B, Pusic AL (2016) Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer survivors: a multicenter comparison of four abdominally based autologous reconstruction methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:758–771

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Phan R, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM (2019) The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures in assessing patient outcomes when comparing autologous to alloplastic breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Gland Surg 8:452–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Billig J, Jagsi R, Qi J, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Pusic AL, Buchel E, Wilkins EG, Momoh AO (2017) Should immediate autologous breast reconstruction be considered in women who require postmastectomy radiation therapy? a prospective analysis of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:1279–1288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Panchal H, Matros E (2017) Current Trends in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.Plast Reconstr Surg 140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):7-13

  19. Leff DR, Bottle A, Mayer E, Patten DK, Rao C, Aylin P, Hadjiminas DJ, Athanasiou T, Darzi A, Gui G (2015) Trends in immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the United Kingdom. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3:507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Veronesi P, Ballardini B, De Lorenzi F, Magnoni F, Lissidini G, Caldarella P, Galimberti V (2011) Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast 20(Suppl 3):S104–S107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen SA, Hiley C, Nickleach D et al (2013) Breast reconstruction and post-mastectomy radiation practice. Radiat Oncol 8:45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Duxbury PJ, Gandhi A, Kirwan CC, Jain Y, Harvey JR (2015) Current attitudes to breast reconstruction surgery for women at risk of post-mastectomy radiotherapy: A survey of UK breast surgeons. Breast 24:502–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rococo E, Mazouni C, Or Z, Mobillion V, Koon Sun Pat M, Bonastre J (2016) Variation in rates of breast cancer surgery: a national analysis based on French Hospital Episode Statistics. Eur J Surg Oncol 42:51–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Frisell A, Lagergren J, de Boniface J (2016) National study of the impact of patient information and involvement in decision-making on immediate breast reconstruction rates. Br J Surg 103:1640–1648

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Heil J, Rauch G, Szabo AZ et al (2013) Breast cancer mastectomy trends between 2006 and 2010: association with magnetic resonance imaging, immediate breast reconstruction, and hospital volume. Ann Surg Oncol 20:3839–3846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Coufal O, Gabrielová L, Justan I, Zapletal O, Selingerová I, Krsička P (2014) Breast cancer patient satisfaction with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Klin Onkol 27:353–360

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tsoi B, Ziolkowski NI, Thoma A, Campbell K, O’Reilly D, Goeree R (2014) Systematic review on the patient reported outcomes of tissue-expander/implant vs autologous abdominal tissue breast reconstruction in postmastectomy breast cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg 218:1038–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL (2018) Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. JAMA Surg 153:891–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yoon AY, Bozzuto L, Seto AJ, Fisher CS, Chatterjee A (2019) A systematic review of utility score assessments in the breast surgery cost-analysis literature. Ann Surg Oncol 26:1190–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, Matros E (2013) A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:15–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Potter S, Conroy EJ, Cutress RI, Williamson PR, Whisker L, Thrush S, Skillman J, Barnes NLP, Mylvaganam S, Teasdale E, Jain A, Gardiner MD, Blazeby JM, Holcombe C, iBRA Steering Group (2019) Breast Reconstruction Research Collaborative. Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 20:254–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ulatowski Ł, Kaniewska A (2015) The use of the diep flap in the modern reconstructive surgery. Pol Przegl Chir 87:472–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jill A. Helms (Stanford University) and Martin Zidek (University of California, San Francisco) for their contributions to this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic of Plastic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Srobarova 50, 10034, Prague 10, Czech Republic

    Pavla Ticha, Michele Bujda & Andrej Sukop

  2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1651 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA

    Pavla Ticha & Meagan Wu

  3. Department of Plastic Surgery, Bulovka Hospital, 1st Medical Faculty of Charles University in Prague, Budinova 2, 14800, Prague 8, Czech Republic

    Ondrej Mestak

Authors
  1. Pavla Ticha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ondrej Mestak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meagan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michele Bujda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrej Sukop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrej Sukop.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The protocol has been approved by the Ethics Commission, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

266_2020_1926_MOESM1_ESM.tif

Supplementary Fig. 1 (a) Prereconstruction frontal view of a patient after skin-sparing mastectomy; (b) postreconstruction frontal view of a patient after skin-sparing mastectomy (TIFF 6536 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ticha, P., Mestak, O., Wu, M. et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes of Three Different Types of Breast Reconstruction with Correlation to the Clinical Data 5 Years Postoperatively. Aesth Plast Surg 44, 2021–2029 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01926-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01926-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation