Patient factors associated with cancer worry post-breast reconstruction: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: The BREAST-Q Breast Cancer module is a patient-reported outcome measure for women with breast cancer diagnosis. Our research team developed and validated a novel BREAST-Q scale for this module that measures quality of life outcomes specific to cancer worry. The aim of this study was to investigate patient related breast reconstruction factors that are associated with worse scores on the new BREAST-Q Cancer Worry Scale. METHODS: Women with a history of breast cancer treated with mastectomy and reconstruction, aged ≥18 years, and English-speaking were recruited through the Love Research Army between October and November 2019. Participants completed demographic and clinical questions alongside the BREAST-Q Cancer Worry Scale. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to identify participant characteristics associated with cancer worry scores. RESULTS: Among the 554 potential respondents, 538 (97.1%) completed the Cancer Worry Scale. The average patient age was 58.4 (+9.8) years. Cancer Worry scores were normally distributed with a mean of 46.4 (+17.2). Cancer Worry scores were significantly associated (p < 0.01) with younger age, history of radiation therapy, complications associated with breast surgery since diagnosis, use of textured breast implants, and shorter duration since surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis provides evidence of patient characteristics that may be associated with cancer worry following postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

Surgery of congenital breast asymmetry-which objective parameter influences the subjective satisfaction with long-term results.

PURPOSE: Congenital breast asymmetry is a serious gynecological malformation for affected patients. The condition hits young women in puberty and is associated with socio-esthetic handicap, depression, and psychosexual problems. Surgical treatment is usually early in the patient's lifetime, so a long-term sustainable solution is important. Although postoperative outcome has been evaluated in several studies before, this study is the first to analyze which objective parameters have the greatest influence on subjective satisfaction with long-term results. METHODS: Thirty-four patients diagnosed with congenital breast asymmetry that underwent either lipofilling or implant therapy between the years of 2008 to 2019 were examined. On average, our collective comprised patients seven years after surgery. Data were mainly gathered through manual measurements, patient-reported outcome measures (Breast Q™), and breast volumetry based on 3D scans (Vectra® H2, Canfield Scientific). RESULTS: Among all analyzed parameters, only areolar diameter correlated significantly negatively with the subjective outcome satisfaction of the patient. Regarding the subjective assessment of postoperative satisfaction with similarity of the breasts, again the mean areolar diameter, but also the difference in areolar diameter and breast volume between the right and left breasts correlated significantly negatively. CONCLUSION: Areolar diameter was revealed as being a significant factor influencing subjective long-term satisfaction in breast asymmetry patients. Moreover, 3D volumetry proves to be an effective tool to substantiate subjective patient assessments. Our findings may lead to further improvements to surgical planning and will be expanded in further studies.

Adjunctive Procedures and Informed Consent with Breast Implant Explantation.

BACKGROUND: The use of injectable or implantable materials or devices in the breast for augmentation or reconstruction has a history of innovation and controversy. Staying current in the field of breast implant management today means understanding not just the published literature but also its absence. Cutting edge breast implant treatment also means awareness of patient and media-driven interests and requests. METHODS: Adjuvant treatments to optimize physical and psychological well-being with breast implant explantation, without replacement, will be addressed through literature review and analysis. RESULTS: The body of literature demonstrates evidence of variable, and sometimes contradictory, methods to address adjunctive management of systemic concerns, the capsule, soft tissue of the native breast/chest, and treatment timing related to explantation. Few approaches are supported by very strong evidence. Many treatment methodologies are defensible. Any current attempts at optimizing management in patients undergoing explantation will be somewhat impaired by the ongoing nebulousness of related issues, such as breast implant illness. It seems clear, therefore, that plastic surgeons must fulfill their duty as caregivers to provide explantation surgery, either to attempt to improve physical health, mental well-being, or simply to respect patients' wishes. A well-informed surgeon will likely employ a variety of approaches, adapted to the unique patient presentations at hand. CONCLUSION: It is expected that consultations, incisions, tissue rearrangements, surgical timing, and treatment indications will continue to vary as scientific investigation strives to understand and to optimize treatment of patients experiencing difficulty with breast implants.

Thinking Outside the Black Box: Current Perceptions on Breast Implant Safety and Utility.

BACKGROUND: There is growing public concern surrounding breast implant safety. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently proposed changes to breast implant labeling, which include a boxed warning. Given such efforts to increase transparency on breast implant safety, this study assessed laywomen's perceptions of breast implant safety, and the impact of proposed changes to breast implant labeling on laywomen's decision-making regarding breast implants. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional investigation of women recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Discrete choice modeling was used to query opinions on breast implants after viewing proposed labeling changes. Chi-square and analysis of variance were used for subgroup analyses, and McNemar analyses were used to assess changes in participants' responses. RESULTS: The authors received 500 survey responses. At baseline, 353 participants (70.6 percent) considered breast implants to be at least somewhat safe. After viewing the proposed boxed warning, 252 participants (50.4 percent) responded that they would be less likely to receive implants. In fact, a significantly greater proportion of participants considered breast implants to be either unsafe or very unsafe after viewing suggested changes to implant labeling than at baseline (58.4 percent versus 28.8 percent; p = 0.001). By the end of the survey, willingness to consider alternative options for breast augmentation/reconstruction increased significantly from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Improved labeling can enhance laywomen's understanding of breast implant safety and can impact decision-making. However, greater scrutiny of breast implants should not prevent women who need implants from receiving them. Transparency and objectivity in the surgeon-patient dialogue can ensure the appropriate use of medical devices such as breast implants.

"You Helped Create This, Help Me Now": A Qualitative Analysis of Patients' Concerns about Breast Implants and a Proposed Strategy for Moving Forward.

BACKGROUND: Some women with breast implants express concern about the safety of implants, fearing the possibility of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and breast implant-related illness. METHODS: A qualitative analysis was performed to examine the perceived challenges, barriers, and worries experienced by these women. Convenience sampling was used to elicit responses from members of Canadian BIA-ALCL Facebook advocacy groups. Three independent coders read and reread the transcripts, using thematic analysis to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Sixty-four women answered questions posed by the president of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons regarding concerns about their breast implants. Five themes were identified: informing, listening, acknowledging, clarifying, and moving forward. Patients desire improved communication about possible risks before implantation and as new information becomes available (informing), sincere listening to their concerns (listening), acknowledgement that these disease entities may be real and have psychosocial/physical impact on patients (acknowledging), clarification of implant-related problems and their treatment (clarifying), and improved processes for monitoring and treatment of patients with identified problems (moving forward). Consideration of these themes in the context of the five domains of trust theory (i.e., fidelity, competence, honesty, confidentiality, and global trust) suggests significant breakdown in the doctor-patient relationship for a subset of concerned women. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns related to BIA-ALCL and breast implant-related illnesses have undermined some women's trust in plastic surgeons. Consideration of these five themes and their impact on the five domains of trust can guide strategies for reestablishing patients' trust in the plastic surgery community.

Two-person screening of mental well-being before primary breast augmentation: Can we do more?

Patients choosing aesthetic surgery are asymptomatic individuals opting for surgery. Psychologists and surgeons have been interested in identifying characteristics of these individuals' preoperative as well as postoperative psychological changes. It was identified that a small number of patients have a primary issue with self-body image, which resulted in altered perceptions and attitudes such that the preoccupation with perceived deficiencies continued even after surgery. The recommended course is to attempt to screen for the patients' mental well-being, as surgery alone does not improve the patients' symptoms. In the first author's practice, each prospective patient is reviewed by two individuals on separate occasions in order to discuss surgery and assure their mental and physical suitability. However, we encountered four patients who exhibited a strong negative reaction to their new shape, to the point that it necessitated explanation in the immediate postoperative phase in two of them. To our knowledge, this situation has not been described in the literature. We discuss the available literature as well as our consent process for breast augmentation. The first author has since introduced BREAST-Q to assess general patient well-being in the pre- and post-operative phases as a result of this experience. We also discuss the results for each of its domains and offer our thoughts about the management of such a situation.

Patient satisfaction in one-stage immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A multi-center comparative patient evaluation of prosthesis, LDMF, and TRAM techniques.

To analyze patient satisfaction and the predictive factors characterizing three types of one-stage immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy, including prosthesis, latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap (LDMF), transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap techniques.Data were collected via face-to-face or telephone interviews from eight breast centers in China from January 2012 to December 2016. A standardized questionnaire that evaluated the general satisfaction and aesthetic satisfaction was sent to patients who had undergone IBR. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with patient satisfaction among the three types of breast reconstruction.A total of 412 questionnaires were sent out, and 309 copies were collected including 226 prosthesis, 46 LDMF, and 37 pedicle TRAM reconstruction. Logistic regression analysis showed that general satisfaction and aesthetic satisfaction were significantly correlated with radiotherapy (P < .001, P = .018), respectively. Besides, the aesthetic satisfaction was also associated with nipple-areola complex (NAC) preservation (P < .001).Our multi-center study identified factors of higher patient satisfaction, like NAC preservation and absence of radiotherapy, in order to help breast surgeons make better decisions about individualized reconstruction plan.

The Impact of Obesity on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a significant public health concern and clear risk factor for complications following breast reconstruction. To date, few have assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) focused on this key determinant. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to investigate the impact of obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) on postoperative satisfaction and physical function utilizing the BREAST-Q in a cohort of autologous breast reconstruction patients. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board-approved prospective investigation was conducted to evaluate PROs in patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction from 2009 to 2017 at a tertiary academic medical center. The BREAST-Q reconstruction module was used to assess outcomes between cohorts preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after reconstruction. RESULTS: Overall, 404 patients underwent autologous breast reconstruction with abdominal free-tissue transfer (244 non-obese, 160 obese) and completed the BREAST-Q. Although obese patients demonstrated lower satisfaction with breasts preoperatively (p = 0.04), no significant differences were noted postoperatively (p = 0.58). However, physical well-being of the abdomen was lower in the obese cohort compared with their non-obese counterparts at long-term follow-up (3 years; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Obesity significantly impacts autologous breast reconstruction patients. Although obese patients are more likely to present with dissatisfaction with breasts preoperatively, they exhibit comparable PROs overall compared with their non-obese counterparts, despite increased complications.

Frequency, Determinants, and Satisfaction of Breast Augmentation in Trans Women Receiving Hormone Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: As breast development in trans women (male sex assigned at birth, female gender identity) who receive gender-affirming hormone treatment is often moderate, they may choose breast augmentation as part of their treatment. AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the frequency, determinants, and satisfaction of breast augmentation among trans women receiving hormone treatment. METHODS: Trans women who started hormone treatment between 1972 and 2018 at our center received an anonymous questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The questionnaire contained questions about the start date of hormone treatment, the current age of the respondent, whether or not she underwent breast augmentation, what her considerations in this decision were, and, if the respondent did have breast implants, whether she was satisfied with the result and/or experienced health complaints she attributed to her breast implants. RESULTS: A total of 3,073 questionnaires were distributed, of which 773 were retrieved back (median age of the respondents: 50 years, interquartile range: 35-59). Age and year of start of hormone treatment was comparable between responders and nonresponders. The frequency of breast augmentation varied from 70% in trans women who started hormone treatment between 1980 and 2000 to 20% in those who started between 2010 and 2015. Trans women underwent breast augmentation median 2 years after the start of hormone treatment (interquartile range: 2-4), and 80% was satisfied with the result. Approximately one-third experienced health complaints they attributed to their breast implants. People who considered breast augmentation reported financial limitations as an important reason not to undergo breast augmentation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that it is important to discuss pros and cons of breast augmentation to support trans women in making a well-informed decision. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This is the largest study performed on the frequency and satisfaction of breast augmentation among trans women, which also includes health complaints and considerations in the decision whether or not to undergo breast augmentation. One of the limitations was that we were unable to link other clinical data. CONCLUSION: 4 of 5 trans women either chose or considered breast augmentation as part of their gender-affirming treatment. Most of the trans women who underwent breast augmentation were satisfied with the result, although approximately one-third experienced health complaints they attributed to their breast implants. Reasons not to undergo breast augmentation included financial limitations. This study shows that it is important to discuss with trans women the positive effects and possible side-effects of breast augmentation to help them make a well-informed decision whether or not to undergo breast augmentation. de Blok CJM, Staphorsius AS, Wiepjes CM, et al. Frequency, Determinants, and Satisfaction of Breast Augmentation in Trans Women Receiving Hormone Treatment. J Sex Med 2020;17:342-348.

Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Quality of Life in Obese Patients: A Comparison between Microsurgical and Prosthetic Implant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction have higher rates of patient-reported satisfaction compared to patients undergoing prosthetic reconstruction. Obesity has been shown to increase postoperative complications in both microsurgical and implant reconstructions. The authors evaluated the effects of microsurgical breast reconstruction and prosthetic breast reconstruction on patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in obese patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of obese patients who underwent breast reconstruction from January of 2009 to December of 2017 was conducted. Patients were divided into two cohorts: microsurgical and two-stage tissue expander/implant-based reconstruction. BREAST-Q survey response, demographic information, complications, and need for revision procedures were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria: 75 (48.4 percent) underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction and 80 (51.6 percent) underwent implant-based reconstruction. Cohorts were similar in body mass index, mean mastectomy specimen weight, laterality, indication for surgery, smoking status, and postoperative complications. Microsurgical reconstruction patients were younger (49.0 years versus 53.0 years; p = 0.02) and more likely to have delayed reconstruction [n = 70 (64.2 percent) versus n = 0 (0.0 percent); p = 0.0001]. BREAST-Q responses showed that microsurgery patients were more satisfied with their breasts (Q-Score of 63.4 ± 6.9 versus 50.8 ± 12.8; p = 0.0001), overall outcome (Q-Score 70.5 ± 13.0 versus 60.3 ± 10.8; p = 0.0001), and chest physical well-being (Q-Score of 69.1 ± 10.9 versus 63.8 ± 8.2; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical breast reconstruction in obese patients yields higher satisfaction with breasts, overall outcomes, and chest physical well-being than implant-based reconstruction. Despite increased postoperative complications associated with obesity, microsurgical breast reconstruction appears to be a good choice for women who understand its risks and benefits and choose to proceed with it.

Systematic Review of the Impact of Acellular Dermal Matrix on Aesthetics and Patient Satisfaction in Tissue Expander-to-Implant Breast Reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix is used in most postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstructions in the United States. It is believed to be safe, despite a slightly increased complication rate. Although never established in a unifying study, the primary advantage of acellular dermal matrix is believed to be an enhanced aesthetic result, thus justifying the added expense. The purpose of this study was to assess the aesthetic benefits of acellular dermal matrix in expander-to-implant breast reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology was performed including all original studies examining aesthetic outcomes of expander-to-implant breast reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix compared to muscular coverage. Direct-to-implant and prepectoral studies were excluded from the evaluation. The results were aggregated and reported as a summary. RESULTS: Among 883 studies identified, 49 full-text articles were reviewed and nine articles ultimately met inclusion criteria. All nine studies were not randomized. Of these, three articles (1448 total patients) evaluated reconstruction aesthetic outcomes by patient satisfaction, whereas six articles evaluated the aesthetic outcomes by external observer (504 total patients). None of the articles evaluating patient satisfaction reported a difference between acellular dermal matrix and muscular reconstruction. Five of the six articles using objective outcomes demonstrated significant improvement in aesthetic outcome in the acellular dermal matrix group. CONCLUSIONS: Although little evidence exists evaluating the aesthetic benefits of acellular dermal matrix for expander-to-implant breast reconstruction, the data suggest that objective observers consider acellular dermal matrix-assisted expander-to-implant breast reconstructions aesthetically superior to reconstruction with only muscular coverage, but patients appear to be equally satisfied with both reconstructive options.

Impact of Unilateral versus Bilateral Breast Reconstruction on Procedure Choices and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In choosing between implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction, surgeons and patients must weigh relative risks and benefits. However, differences in outcomes across procedure types may vary between unilateral versus bilateral reconstructions. Procedure-related differences in complications and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated for unilateral and bilateral reconstruction. METHODS: Complications and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q and Patient-Reported Outcomes measurement Information System surveys) were assessed at 2 years for patients undergoing autologous or implant-based reconstructions. Stratified regression models compared outcomes between autologous and implant-based reconstructions, separately for unilateral and bilateral cohorts. RESULTS: Among 2125 patients, 917 underwent unilateral (600 implant and 317 autologous) and 1208 underwent bilateral (994 implant and 214 autologous) reconstructions. Complication rates were significantly higher in the autologous versus implant-based group for both unilateral (overall: OR, 2.50, p < 0.001; major: OR, 2.19, p = 0.001) and bilateral (overall: OR, 2.13, p < 0.001; major: OR, 1.69, p = 0.014) cohorts. In unilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly better patient-reported outcomes versus implant-based group in satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 9.85; p < 0.001), psychosocial well-being (mean difference, 4.84; p = 0.006), and sexual well-being (mean difference, 11.42; p < 0.001). In bilateral reconstruction, the autologous group demonstrated significantly higher patient-reported outcomes only for satisfaction with breast (mean difference, 5.13; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although autologous reconstruction is associated with significantly better patient-reported outcomes compared to implant-based techniques in unilateral reconstruction, procedure choice has far less impact in bilateral reconstruction. Autologous procedures have higher complications rates in both unilateral and bilateral settings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Breast augmentation surgery: Clinical considerations.

Women receive breast implants for both aesthetic and reconstructive reasons. This brief review discusses the evolution of and complications related to breast implants, as well as key considerations with regard to aesthetic and reconstructive surgery of the breast.

[Patients' satisfaction after immediate breast reconstruction: Comparison between five surgical techniques]. / Satisfaction des patientes après reconstruction mammaire immédiate : comparaison entre cinq techniques chirurgicales.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to evaluate patients' satisfaction after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) according to the surgical technique. METHODS: Included patients had an IBR between 2012 and 2017 and finished their reconstruction since a year. Patients were contacted by phone and their satisfaction was evaluated with the Breast Q questionnaire. According to the surgical technique, patients were divided into 5 groups: DIEP, gracilis, Latissimus Dorsi flap, definitive implant and expander implant. Techniques were grouped into two categories: free flaps and prothesis. Nipple reconstruction techniques were also evaluated: toe pulp grafting, nipple sharing and local flap. RESULTS: Nighty-five patients on the 103 who were eligible accepted to answer the questionnaire. Satisfaction with breasts was stastistically higher in the free flap group (72.6/100) than in the prothesis group (62.7/100) (P<0.01). Physical well-being (chest) was better for the free flap group than for the prothesis group (92.2/100 vs. 85.2/100, P=0.02). Nipple reconstructions with nipple sharing and free flap give a better satisfaction for patients than toe pulp grafting (75.3/100 and 73.5/100 vs. 47.8/100, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: IBR with free flap give, in a short time, a statistically higher satisfaction for breast than prothesis. Nipple reconstructions with free flap and nipple sharing give a better satisfaction too.

An evaluation of online information available for women with breast implants aged 47-73 who have been invited to attend the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

INTRODUCTION: The Internet has become an innovative instrument older adults utilise to obtain health-related information. Poor quality health information may cause harm to individuals. If not accessible, or at a level comprehended by target audiences, this does not support the development of their knowledge and subsequently hinders patient's ability to make informed-decisions. AIM: evaluate quality, readability, accessibility and usability of online information for women with breast implants invited to attend the NHSBSP. METHODS: Eight websites were evaluated for quality and accessibility/usability using uniquely developed evaluation tools. The 'three-click' rule was used to assess usability and SMOG tool to measure readability. Quality and accessibility/usability scores were combined to give an overall score, which were then converted into percentages. A percentage categorisation system ranked the percentage scores from poor to excellent. Readability scores were represented in number of years of education required to read/understand text. RESULTS: Average quality score = 14 (66.6%). Average accessibility/usability score = 9 (56.6%). 7 websites achieved an overall score in the poor percentage category (below 75%). Over 50% of websites had readability levels higher than the recommended level for online health information. 100% were above the UK average reading age. CONCLUSION: Websites providing information on breast screening with implants are not easily accessible, are of poor quality and too difficult to be read by most people. The quality, readability and accessibility of each website's content should be improved to help support women make informed decisions relating-to breast-screening attendance, increase their understanding and lessen their anxiety.

The Effect of Radiation on Quality of Life throughout the Breast Reconstruction Process: A Prospective, Longitudinal Pilot Study of 200 Patients with Long-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-established correlation of postmastectomy radiotherapy and surgical complications in breast reconstruction, its impact on patient reported outcomes is less clear. We sought to determine the effect of postmastectomy radiotherapy on patient reported outcomes throughout the breast reconstruction process. METHODS: Patients undergoing prosthetic and autologous breast reconstruction from November 2010 to June 2013 were prospectively followed with BREAST-Q surveys (preoperatively, after expander placement, and 6 and 12 months after final reconstruction). Paired t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and multiple linear regression were used to determine the effect of radiation on patient reported outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were included in the study, of which 51 (25.5 percent) received postmastectomy radiotherapy. Prosthetic reconstruction was performed in 75 patients (37.5 percent), autologous reconstruction was performed in 118 (59 percent), and pure fat grafting was performed in seven (3.5 percent). At one-year follow-up, the nonirradiated group reported higher BREAST-Q scores when compared with the irradiated group, in Satisfaction with Breasts (p = 0.003), Psychosocial Well-being (p = 0.003), Sexual Well-being (p < 0.001), Physical Well-being of Chest (p = 0.024), and Satisfaction with Outcome (p = 0.03). When accounting for baseline values, Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-being of Chest significantly worsened in irradiated patients undergoing prosthetic reconstruction, an effect not seen with autologous reconstructions. All irradiated patients significantly worsened in Psychosocial Well-being and Sexual Well-being scores. CONCLUSIONS: Postmastectomy radiotherapy is associated with worse patient reported outcomes following breast reconstruction. Autologous reconstruction can mitigate patient dissatisfaction in some domains. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Quality of Life After Breast Enlargement With Implants Versus Augmentation Mastopexy: A Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Research regarding quality of life (QoL) among women who have undergone breast aesthetic surgery is expanding. A comparative, anonymous study between the two main breast aesthetic procedures is needed. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared patient characteristics and aspects of QoL among women who underwent breast enlargement with implants (BI group) and those who underwent augmentation mastopexy (AM group). METHODS: Patients at the Oslo Plastic Surgery Clinic were given a 47-question survey to measure QoL. The survey was anonymous; 61 patients who received breast implants and 37 patients who underwent augmentation mastopexy between 2005 and 2009 responded. Answers were processed by a QuestBack return mail system and sent to the authors. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate significance between the groups. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% in the BI group and 88% in the AM group. Mean follow-up time was 2.8 years in both groups. Motivation for surgery was primarily cosmetic (65%) and emotional (48%) in the BI group as well as cosmetic (78%) and physical (31%) in the AM group. The effects on psychosocial aspects were significant in the BI group regarding life changes and feeling like a "whole" person (68.9% vs 40.5% and 73.8% vs 40%). BI group also had a significantly higher satisfaction with overall cosmetic result, enlargement, and breast volume (93.4 %, 90.2%, 80% vs 69.4%, 70.2% vs 67% in AM group). Additionally, the BI group was more satisfied with shape, scar, and symmetry (90.1% vs 63.9%, 70.6% vs 40.5%, and 83.6% vs 54.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: None of our patient groups were stereotypical and motivation for surgery was primarily cosmetic in both groups. BI patients were significantly more satisfied with the aesthetic outcome and the QoL of many psychosocial aspects. AM patients may have had different expectations than BI patients and a significant dissatisfaction was reported in shape, scarring, symmetry, and the nipple-areola complex.

Most women recover from psychological distress after postoperative complications following implant or DIEP flap breast reconstruction: A prospective long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Substantial complication rates after postmastectomy breast reconstruction (BR) in breast cancer patients have been reported. Few studies have reported on the resulting psychological distress (PD) and satisfaction with the aesthetic result in relation to postoperative complications after completion of implant or DIEP flap BR. The present study investigated whether women were able to recover from complication related distress in the long term. METHODS: PD was prospectively measured using questionnaires regarding anxiety, depression and cancer distress. Eligible patients completed questionnaires before BR (T0, n = 144), after one month (T1, n = 139) and after completion of BR, approximately 21 months after initial reconstructive surgery (T2, n = 119). Satisfaction with the aesthetic result was assessed 21 months after BR. Data concerning complications, subsequent additional surgery and total reconstruction failure up to T2 were collected from the medical records. Analyses were performed using multi-level regression analyses correcting for age. RESULTS: One or more complications occurred in 61 patients (42%) and 50 women required subsequent surgery (35%). In time, mean PD significantly declined towards baseline scores independent of complications. However, a total reconstruction failure (n = 10) was significantly associated with a large temporary increase in depression scores. After additional surgery due to complications patients were less satisfied with aesthetic outcome, although patient satisfaction was independent of PD. CONCLUSIONS: PD outcomes generally declined to normal levels after completion of the entire BR course. Patients experiencing a total reconstruction failure reported more depression after this loss, but in the long term recovered to the same level as women without complications. These findings indicate that women generally can cope efficiently with these serious adverse events, even if they were less satisfied with the aesthetic result.

The Impact of Animation Deformity on Quality of Life in Post-Mastectomy Reconstruction Patients.

Background: Animation deformity after subpectoral breast implant placement has been documented; however, the actual prevalence and effect on patient quality of life has not been studied much. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to show that all patients with subpectoral implants experience some degree of animation deformity and that it can affect their quality of life, including causing embarrassment and discomfort in reconstructed patients. Methods: Patients who underwent breast implant surgery were contacted for inclusion in the study. Patients were obtained from a single surgeon's practice but included patients operated on outside the practice, and those seen in the practice for a consultation. A six-item questionnaire was developed by the senior author (H.B.) and the medical student (N.F.) involved in the study, to assess quality of life related to animation deformity. Patients had their degree of animation deformity assessed by the senior author and a medical student. Results: Of 25 patients who agreed to the questionnaire and assessment, 20% had grade I distortion, 44% grade II, 24% grade III, and 12% grade IV. Of the patients questioned, 80% were bothered by an animation deformity and 45% of those patients were bothered to a significant degree (≥6 out of 10). In addition, 48% of patients felt that the animation deformity interfered with their daily life, and 28% (7/25) of patients underwent, or were scheduled to undergo, revision of their reconstruction at the time of interview. The degree of the clinically observed animation deformity was correlated with patient dissatisfaction, with an R value of 0.47 (P value = 0.0145). Conclusions: All patients with subpectoral implant positioning will experience some degree of animation deformity. Especially in the reconstructed breast population, animation deformity, and its severity, affects patients' quality of life. Other approaches to reconstruction should be considered to prevent animation deformity in this population. Level of Evidence: 4.