Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • 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

. 2020 ; 44 (6) : 2021-2029. [pub] 20200918

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

E-resources Online Full text

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

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...