Cargando…

Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—A deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes

INTRODUCTION: Autologous (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) represent the most common procedures after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy. This cross-sectional study is a comprehensive analysis of ABR and IBR considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: von Glinski, Maxi, Holler, Nikla, Kümmel, Sherko, Reinisch, Mattea, Wallner, Christoph, Wagner, Johannes Maximilian, Dadras, Mehran, Sogorski, Alexander, Lehnhardt, Marcus, Behr, Björn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9483019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36132203
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.903734
_version_ 1784791580601745408
author von Glinski, Maxi
Holler, Nikla
Kümmel, Sherko
Reinisch, Mattea
Wallner, Christoph
Wagner, Johannes Maximilian
Dadras, Mehran
Sogorski, Alexander
Lehnhardt, Marcus
Behr, Björn
author_facet von Glinski, Maxi
Holler, Nikla
Kümmel, Sherko
Reinisch, Mattea
Wallner, Christoph
Wagner, Johannes Maximilian
Dadras, Mehran
Sogorski, Alexander
Lehnhardt, Marcus
Behr, Björn
author_sort von Glinski, Maxi
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Autologous (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) represent the most common procedures after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy. This cross-sectional study is a comprehensive analysis of ABR and IBR considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients underwent breast reconstruction (ABR and IBR) after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcome parameters included quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer - EORTC - QLQ30, BR23, Breast-Q, CES-D), complication rates, aesthetic result, and breast sensitivity. RESULTS: 108 patients participated in the study (IBR: n = 72, age 48.9 ± 9.9 years; ABR: n = 36, age: 46.6 ± 7.3 years). Mean follow-up was 27.1 ± 9.3 (IBR) and 34.9 ± 20.5 (ABR), respectively. IBR patients suffered significantly more often from major complications (30.6% vs. 8.3%; p = 0.01), while ABR patients underwent secondary procedures significantly more often to improve the aesthetic result (55.6% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.004). Unilateral reconstructions revealed superior aesthetic results in ABR (n.s.), while in bilateral reconstruction IBR tended to score higher (n.s.). Scar evaluation resulted in a better result of IBR in both categories (p < 0.01). Breast sensitivity was severely impaired in both groups. The Breast-Q revealed a significantly higher “patient satisfaction with breast” after ABR (p = 0.033), while the other QoL-tests and subscales showed no significant differences between the two procedures. CONCLUSION: ABR is associated with a higher patient satisfaction despite the high probability of secondary procedures to improve the aesthetic outcome, whereas IBR-patients suffer more often from major complications. Furthermore, the laterality of reconstruction should be included in the individual decision-making process.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9483019
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94830192022-09-20 Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—A deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes von Glinski, Maxi Holler, Nikla Kümmel, Sherko Reinisch, Mattea Wallner, Christoph Wagner, Johannes Maximilian Dadras, Mehran Sogorski, Alexander Lehnhardt, Marcus Behr, Björn Front Surg Surgery INTRODUCTION: Autologous (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) represent the most common procedures after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy. This cross-sectional study is a comprehensive analysis of ABR and IBR considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients underwent breast reconstruction (ABR and IBR) after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcome parameters included quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer - EORTC - QLQ30, BR23, Breast-Q, CES-D), complication rates, aesthetic result, and breast sensitivity. RESULTS: 108 patients participated in the study (IBR: n = 72, age 48.9 ± 9.9 years; ABR: n = 36, age: 46.6 ± 7.3 years). Mean follow-up was 27.1 ± 9.3 (IBR) and 34.9 ± 20.5 (ABR), respectively. IBR patients suffered significantly more often from major complications (30.6% vs. 8.3%; p = 0.01), while ABR patients underwent secondary procedures significantly more often to improve the aesthetic result (55.6% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.004). Unilateral reconstructions revealed superior aesthetic results in ABR (n.s.), while in bilateral reconstruction IBR tended to score higher (n.s.). Scar evaluation resulted in a better result of IBR in both categories (p < 0.01). Breast sensitivity was severely impaired in both groups. The Breast-Q revealed a significantly higher “patient satisfaction with breast” after ABR (p = 0.033), while the other QoL-tests and subscales showed no significant differences between the two procedures. CONCLUSION: ABR is associated with a higher patient satisfaction despite the high probability of secondary procedures to improve the aesthetic outcome, whereas IBR-patients suffer more often from major complications. Furthermore, the laterality of reconstruction should be included in the individual decision-making process. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9483019/ /pubmed/36132203 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.903734 Text en © 2022 von Glinski, Holler, Kümmel, Reinisch, Wallner, Wagner, Dadras, Sogorski, Lehnhardt and Behr. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
von Glinski, Maxi
Holler, Nikla
Kümmel, Sherko
Reinisch, Mattea
Wallner, Christoph
Wagner, Johannes Maximilian
Dadras, Mehran
Sogorski, Alexander
Lehnhardt, Marcus
Behr, Björn
Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—A deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes
title Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—A deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes
title_full Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—A deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes
title_fullStr Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—A deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—A deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes
title_short Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—A deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes
title_sort autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy—a deeper insight considering surgical and patient-reported outcomes
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9483019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36132203
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.903734
work_keys_str_mv AT vonglinskimaxi autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT hollernikla autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT kummelsherko autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT reinischmattea autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT wallnerchristoph autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT wagnerjohannesmaximilian autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT dadrasmehran autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT sogorskialexander autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT lehnhardtmarcus autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes
AT behrbjorn autologousvsimplantbasedbreastreconstructionafterskinandnipplesparingmastectomyadeeperinsightconsideringsurgicalandpatientreportedoutcomes