| Title | A retrospective analysis of patient satisfaction with immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction: comparison of three common procedures. |
| Author(s) | Saulis AS, Mustoe TA, Fine NA |
| Institution | Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. |
| Source | Plast Reconstr Surg 2007 May; 119(6):1669-76; discussion 1677-8. |
| MeSH | Adult
Analysis of Variance
Breast Implants
Breast Neoplasms
Combined Modality Therapy
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Graft Survival
Humans
Mammaplasty
Mastectomy
Middle Aged
Pain, Postoperative
Patient Satisfaction
Probability
Questionnaires
Rectus Abdominis
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Surgical Flaps
Time Factors
Tissue Expansion
Wound Healing
|
| Abstract | BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to quantify overall patient satisfaction with three breast reconstruction techniques and identify factors that have influenced satisfaction.
METHODS: Two hundred sixty-eight questionnaires were mailed at least 6 months after immediate breast reconstruction to consecutive breast reconstruction patients over a 3-year period. A second questionnaire was sent out 9 months later to the tissue expander/implant group of patients.
RESULTS: The initial questionnaire demonstrated that overall satisfaction was significantly greater in the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap patients as compared with the tissue expander/implant patients (p < 0.05). However, the number of patients willing to repeat the procedure and recommend their procedure to a friend was similar among all three reconstructive techniques. A significantly greater number of tissue expander/implant patients as compared with TRAM flap patients felt they had not received sufficient information to make an educated decision (p < 0.05). This finding correlated with the lower satisfaction rate among the tissue expander/implant patients. The second questionnaire sent only to the tissue expander/implant patients revealed that the majority felt uninformed about the final aesthetic outcome and the frequency and pain associated with the expansion process.
CONCLUSIONS: All three groups may claim to be satisfied with their own personal choices. Many patients will continue to choose tissue expander/implant reconstruction in an effort to avoid scars and more extensive surgery. Being less satisfied is not wrong or bad, provided it is known. Tissue expander/implant patients should be thoroughly informed in the preoperative setting about the final aesthetic outcomes and the immediate perioperative expansion period, which may involve a considerable amount of patient commitment and discomfort in some women. |
| Language | eng |
| Pub Type(s) | Comparative Study
Journal Article
|
| PubMed ID | 17440339 |
