-
Something wrong with this record ?
Patient-Reported Outcomes of Three Different Types of Breast Reconstruction with Correlation to the Clinical Data 5 Years Postoperatively
P. Ticha, O. Mestak, M. Wu, M. Bujda, A. Sukop
Language English Country United States
Document type Journal Article
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 2002-11-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2003-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2002-11-01 to 1 year ago
- MeSH
- Esthetics MeSH
- Patient Reported Outcome Measures MeSH
- Quality of Life MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Mammaplasty * adverse effects MeSH
- Mastectomy MeSH
- Breast Neoplasms * surgery MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
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 .
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21011767
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20230222110826.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210420s2020 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s00266-020-01926-5 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)32945960
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Tichá, Pavla $u Clinic of Plastic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Srobarova 50, 10034, Prague 10, Czech Republic $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1651 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA $7 xx0282380
- 245 10
- $a Patient-Reported Outcomes of Three Different Types of Breast Reconstruction with Correlation to the Clinical Data 5 Years Postoperatively / $c P. Ticha, O. Mestak, M. Wu, M. Bujda, A. Sukop
- 520 9_
- $a 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 .
- 650 12
- $a nádory prsu $x chirurgie $7 D001943
- 650 _2
- $a průřezové studie $7 D003430
- 650 _2
- $a estetika $7 D004954
- 650 _2
- $a následné studie $7 D005500
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a mamoplastika $x škodlivé účinky $7 D016462
- 650 _2
- $a mastektomie $7 D008408
- 650 _2
- $a hodnocení výsledků péče pacientem $7 D000071066
- 650 _2
- $a kvalita života $7 D011788
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Mestak, Ondrej $u Department of Plastic Surgery, Bulovka Hospital, 1st Medical Faculty of Charles University in Prague, Budinova 2, 14800, Prague 8, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Wu, Meagan $u Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1651 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA
- 700 1_
- $a Bujda, Michele $u Clinic of Plastic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Srobarova 50, 10034, Prague 10, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Sukop, Andrej $u Clinic of Plastic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Charles University in Prague, Srobarova 50, 10034, Prague 10, Czech Republic. andrej@sukop.cz
- 773 0_
- $w MED00005691 $t Aesthetic plastic surgery $x 1432-5241 $g Roč. 44, č. 6 (2020), s. 2021-2029
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32945960 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210420 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20230222110821 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1650211 $s 1132146
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 44 $c 6 $d 2021-2029 $e 20200918 $i 1432-5241 $m Aesthetic plastic surgery $n Aesthetic Plast Surg $x MED00005691
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210420