Patient-Reported Aesthetic Satisfaction with Breast Reconstruction during the Long-Term Survivorship Perio

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.99). 08/2009; 124(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ab10b2
Source: PubMed


Expander/implant and autogenous tissue breast reconstructions have different aging processes, and the time when these processes stabilize is unclear. The authors' goal was to evaluate long-term patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with expander/implant and autogenous breast reconstruction.
The authors surveyed a cross-section of University of Michigan women who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction (response rate, 73 percent) between 1988 and 2006 [110 expander/implant and 109 transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) reconstructions]. Each group was stratified into three postreconstructive periods: short term (<or=5 years), intermediate (6 to 8 years), and long term (>8 years). Validated satisfaction items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale; scores were dichotomized into positive and negative responses. Logistic regression assessed satisfaction by procedure, while controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables.
Mean follow-up time after reconstruction was 6.5 years (range, 1 to 18 years). Procedure type had no effect on short-term aesthetic satisfaction. However, in the long term, reconstruction type considerably affected satisfaction. Although satisfaction with TRAM reconstruction remained relatively constant, satisfaction with expander/implants was significantly less among those patients in the long term. Patients who had undergone implant reconstruction more than 8 years earlier, compared with those who undergone implant reconstruction less than 5 years earlier, were significantly less satisfied with breast appearance (odds ratio, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.48), softness (odds ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.64), and size (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.62).
In the long term, TRAM patients, compared with expander/implant patients, appear to have significantly greater aesthetic satisfaction. These long-term data have important implications for women's health in the survivorship period and will help women navigate the complex decision-making process of breast reconstruction.

8 Reads
  • Source
    • "To compare the change in patient satisfaction and QOL between the two surgical interventions from baseline to 12 months following completion of reconstruction, we will use the breast reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q. A patient-reported outcome was selected as the primary outcome measure as the main goal of breast reconstruction surgery is to improve patient QOL [28,31-34]. The 12-month time-point was selected because there is evidence that QOL evolves dynamically in the first year following breast cancer surgery and plateaus at 1-year [35,36]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The two-stage tissue expander/implant (TE/I) reconstruction is currently the gold standard method of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction in North America. Recently, however, there have been numerous case series describing the use of one-stage direct to implant reconstruction with the aid of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). In order to rigorously investigate the novel application of ADM in one-stage implant reconstruction, we are currently conducting a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the impact on patient satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) compared to the two-stage TE/I technique.Methods/designsThe MCCAT study is a multicenter Canadian ADM trial designed as a two-arm parallel superiority trial that will compare ADM-facilitated one-stage implant reconstruction compared to two-stage TE/I reconstruction following skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) at 2 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The source population will be members of the mastectomy cohort with stage T0 to TII disease, proficient in English, over the age of 18 years, and planning to undergo SSM or NSM with immediate implant breast reconstruction. Stratified randomization will maintain a balanced distribution of important prognostic factors (study site and unilateral versus bilateral procedures). The primary outcome is patient satisfaction and QOL as measured by the validated and procedure-specific BREAST-Q. Secondary outcomes include short- and long-term complications, long-term aesthetic outcomes using five standardized photographs graded by three independent blinded observers, and a cost effectiveness analysis. There is tremendous interest in using ADM in implant breast reconstruction, particularly in the setting of one-stage direct to implant reconstruction where it was previously not possible without the intermediary use of a temporary tissue expander (TE). This unique advantage has led many patients and surgeons alike to believe that one-stage ADM-assisted implant reconstruction should be the procedure of choice and should be offered to patients as the first-line treatment. We argue that it is crucial that this technique be scientifically evaluated in terms of patient selection, surgical technique, complications, aesthetic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and most importantly patient-reported outcomes before it is promoted as the new gold standard in implant-based breast reconstruction.Trial NCT00956384.
    Trials 10/2013; 14(1):356. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-356 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The majority of women who undergo breast reconstruction are satisfied with the outcome and the aesthetic result [5,9-11]. However, one fourth of women report being dissatisfied with some component of their cancer or reconstructive care [12]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Breast cancer survivors who make preference-sensitive decisions about postmastectomy breast reconstruction often have large gaps in knowledge and undergo procedures that are misaligned with their treatment goals. We evaluated the feasibility and effect of a pre-consultation educational group intervention on the decision-making process for breast reconstruction. Methods: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) where participants were randomly assigned to the intervention with routine education or routine education alone. The outcomes evaluated were decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement in care, and uptake of reconstruction following surgical consultation. Trial feasibility and acceptability were evaluated, and effect sizes were calculated to determine the primary outcome for the full-scale RCT. Results: Of the 41 patients enrolled, recruitment rate was 72 %, treatment fidelity was 98 %, and retention rate was 95 %. The Cohen's d effect size in reduction of decisional conflict was moderate to high for the intervention group compared to routine education (0.69, 95 % CI = 0.02-1.42), while the effect sizes of increase in decision self-efficacy (0.05, 95 % CI = -0.60-0.71) and satisfaction with information (0.11, 95 % CI = -0.53-0.76) were small. A higher proportion of patients receiving routine education signed informed consent to undergo breast reconstruction (14/20 or 70 %) compared to the intervention group (8/21 or 38 %) P = 0.06. Conclusions: A pre-consultation educational group intervention improves patients' shared decision-making quality compared to routine preoperative patient education. A full-scale definitive RCT is warranted based on high feasibility outcomes, and the primary outcome for the main trial will be decisional conflict.
    Trials 07/2013; 14(1):199. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-199 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Journal of the American College of Surgeons 12/2009; 209(6):790; author reply 790. DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.08.016 · 5.12 Impact Factor
Show more


8 Reads