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:...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |