Do Small Scars Lead to Better Results? Analysis of Long-term Outcomes and Satisfaction of Patients Undergoing Anchor-line Abdominoplasty Following Massive Weight Loss.

INTRODUCTION: Do smaller scars lead to higher patient satisfaction? The aim of this study is to analyze long-term satisfaction of patients who underwent abdominoplasty after massive weight loss. METHODS: Patients inclusion criteria: no previous abdominal remodeling procedures, previous bariatric surgery followed by a weight loss of at least 30 kg, weight stability for at least one year, good understanding of the Italian language and standardized pre- and postoperative photographs. We divided the population in 2 groups based on the surgical procedure: group 1, conventional abdominoplasty, and group 2, anchor-line abdominoplasty. All patients presented scars in the epigastric and mesogastric region resulting from previous laparoscopic or laparotomic bariatric surgery and/or other laparoscopic or laparotomic procedures. At least 2 years after surgery, we administered the Italian version of the post-operative BODY-Q module and the SCAR-Q questionnaire. RESULTS: We enrolled 20 males and 69 females aged between 25 and 55 years, with a mean follow-up of 2 years. Analyzing the questionnaires, it resulted that patients undergoing anchor-line abdominoplasty were significantly more satisfied in the body perception of the result (p = 0.035) and in the satisfaction with abdomen domain (p = 0.0015) compared to the conventional abdominoplasty group. Scars assessment with the SCAR-Q did not show any significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite its long scars, the anchor-line pattern shows an overall higher satisfaction, due to the possibility of reducing the abdomen both cranio-caudally and circumferentially. These findings might be an important guide when approaching abdominoplasty in post-bariatric patients, debunking the myth "shorter is better". LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

BODY-Q eating-related symptoms following sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Recent data describing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms experienced by patients after bariatric surgery is lacking, and previous studies in sleeve gastrectomy patients have been limited in scope of follow-up time or extent of GI symptoms examined. We sought to characterize the prevalence and time course of patient-reported eating-related symptoms in sleeve gastrectomy patients. METHODS: From July 2020 to July 2021, sleeve gastrectomy patients seen at three Boston area hospitals received electronic surveys and prospectively reported GI symptoms using the BODY-Q eating-related symptoms scale. Descriptive analyses were performed for patient demographics and symptom prevalence. Chi-square tests were used to compare prevalence of eating-related symptoms between follow-up time intervals. RESULTS: 491 sleeve gastrectomy patients completed postoperative surveys with mean follow-up time of 1.9 years. Mean age was 46.6 years, and 81.3% were female. The most reported GI symptoms overall included constipation (56.6%), bloating (54.0%), heartburn when standing (41.5%), and heartburn when lying down (39.9%) while the least commonly reported symptoms were palpitations (16.3%), low blood sugar (15.7%), and emesis (15.1%). At greater than 12 months, the most reported symptoms similarly included bloating (60.3%), constipation (53.2%), and heartburn while standing (46.0%). When comparing prevalence of eating-related symptoms across follow-up time intervals from < 1 to > 12 months, patients reported a significant decrease in constipation, abdominal pain, and nausea over time (p = 0.012, p < .0001, p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients experience both upper and lower GI symptoms following sleeve gastrectomy, and symptoms, including bloating, constipation, and heartburn may persist through long-term follow-up. These patient-centered measures add value by guiding preoperative counseling, informing postoperative expectations, and providing real-time clinical feedback for bariatric surgery patients.

Patients Decision-Making Characteristics Affects Gynecomastia Treatment Satisfaction: A Multicenter Study Using the BODY-Q Chest Module.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is the most critical outcome in gynecomastia treatment. However, patient satisfaction may be affected by the patient's decision-making trait, such as exhaustively searching for the best outcome or being content with an outcome that satisfies a preconceived requirement. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patient's decision-making characteristic affect their satisfaction with gynecomastia treatment. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study including patients treated for gynecomastia between January 2009 and December 2019 at two tertiary hospitals in Denmark. Alive patients were sent the BODY-Q: Chest module, the SF-36 questionnaire, and the Maximizer/Satisficer decision-making survey. Patients were classified as Maximizers if they scored more than 40 points on the Maximizer/Satisficer survey. Percentage score differences (PDs) in quality of life scales were calculated between Maximizers and Satisficers. RESULTS: In total, 192 gynecomastia patients were included in this study and classified as Maximizers (n = 152) or Satisficers (n = 40). Maximizers were younger and more had gynecomastia following abuse of anabolic steroids than Satisficers (p < 0.05). With respect to bodily satisfaction, Maximizers showed significantly worse satisfaction with nipples (PDs: - 12.98%), psychological function (PDs: - 13.68%) and social function (PDs: - 8.77%, p < 0.05). In addition, Maximizers had significantly worse emotional role functioning (- 11.03%), vitality (PDs: - 11.72%) and mental health (PDs: - 10.00%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients exhibiting maximizing-type decision-making characteristics have worse satisfaction with gynecomastia treatment and poorer psychosocial health. This information may facilitate patient counseling and alignment of treatment expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes: Key Metrics in Reconstructive Surgery.

Satisfaction and improved quality of life are among the most important outcomes for patients undergoing plastic and reconstructive surgery for a variety of diseases and conditions. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools for evaluating the benefits of newly developed surgical techniques. Modern PROMs are being developed with new psychometric approaches, such as Rasch Measurement Theory, and their measurement properties (validity, reliability, responsiveness) are rigorously tested. These advances have resulted in the availability of PROMs that provide clinically meaningful data and effectively measure functional as well as psychosocial outcomes. This article guides the reader through the steps of creating a PROM and highlights the potential research and clinical uses of such instruments. Limitations of PROMs and anticipated future directions in this field are discussed.

Deriving an overall appearance domain score by applying bifactor IRT analysis to the BODY-Q appearance scales.

PURPOSE: With the BODY-Q, one can assess outcomes, such as satisfaction with appearance, in weight loss and body contouring patients using multiple scales. All scales can be used independently in any given combination or order. Currently, the BODY-Q cannot provide overall appearance scores across scales that measure a similar super-ordinate construct (i.e., overall appearance), which could improve the scales' usefulness as a benchmarking tool and improve the comprehensibility of patient feedback. We explored the possibility of establishing overall appearance scores, by applying a bifactor model to the BODY-Q appearance scales. METHODS: In a bifactor model, questionnaire items load onto both a primary specific factors and a general factor, such as satisfaction with appearance. The international BODY-Q validation patient sample (n = 734) was used to fit a bifactor model to the appearance domain. Factor loadings, fit indices, and correlation between bifactor appearance domain and satisfaction with body scale were assessed. RESULTS: All items loaded on the general factor of their corresponding domain. In the appearance domain, all items demonstrated adequate item fit to the model. All scales had satisfactory fit to the bifactor model (RMSEA 0.045, CFI 0.969, and TLI 0.964). The correlation between the appearance domain summary scores and satisfaction with body scale scores was found to be 0.77. DISCUSSION: We successfully applied a bifactor model to BODY-Q data with good item and model fit indices. With this method, we were able to produce reliable overall appearance scores which may improve the interpretability of the BODY-Q while increasing flexibility.

Treatment of Severe Gynecomastia After Massive Weight Loss: Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes Measured with the Italian Version of the BODY-Q.

INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study are: (1) comparison of long-term outcomes after correction of severe gynecomastia using different techniques; (2) apply the Italian version of the BODY-Q; (3) present the role of intercostal perforator flap (ICAP) after massive weight loss for correction of severe gynecomastia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2008 and March 2016, we performed surgical correction of bilateral severe gynecomastia in 80 men (160 breasts) following massive weight loss. Patients answered the Italian version of BODY-Q postoperative module. All patients had experienced substantial weight loss (> 30 kg), presented with bilateral severe tissue ptosis of the breast, follow-up of almost 2 years and had a good understanding of the Italian language, and signed consents were included in the study. The sample was studied about age, BMI, comorbidity, bariatric surgical procedure, follow-up, type of post-bariatric surgical procedure, complications and secondary procedures. RESULTS: We performed 487 severe gynecomastia corrections from 2008 to 2016; 80 patients adhered to the inclusion criteria and formed our study group. This cross-sectional study compared three cohorts: 52 access using a circumareolar scar, 18 with an inframammary fold scar, 10 with an inframammary fold scar using intercostal perforator flaps. There were 16 secondary procedures in group one, 2 in group two and 1 in group three. We compared the secondary procedures of group 1 with the other groups, and we obtained a significant difference with a P = 0.04. The mean patient age was 36.5 years, and the average body mass index was 27.5 kg/m2 at the time of surgical correction of gynecomastia. From the BODY-Q analysis, the group of patients undergoing adenomammectomy with inframammary fold scar using intercostal perforator flaps has achieved significantly better results regarding the satisfaction with chest, psychosocial function, satisfaction with outcome and better body image. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that used the BODY-Q to analyze the correction of severe gynecomastia following massive weight loss with long-term results. The use of this patient-reported outcome measure underlined that the intercostal artery perforator flap, used in the correction of severe gynecomastia following massive weight loss, is a safe and effective technique with good outcomes and high patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Further psychometric validation of the BODY-Q: ability to detect change following bariatric surgery weight gain and loss.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews have identified that current patient-reported outcome instruments have content limitations when used to measure change following bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to measure change after bariatric surgery using the BODY-Q, a PRO instrument designed for weight loss and body contouring. METHODS: The BODY-Q is composed of 18 independently functioning scales and an obesity-specific symptom checklist that measure appearance, health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and experience of health-care. The sample for this study included patients who were exploring or seeking bariatric surgery in Hamilton (Canada) at the time of the BODY-Q field-test study and who agreed to further contact from the research team. These patients were invited to complete 12 BODY-Q scales and the symptom checklist between 7 June 2016 and 29 November 2016. Data were collected online (REDCap) and via postal surveys. Clinical change was measured using paired t-tests with effect sizes and standardized response means. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 58 of 89 (65%) pre-bariatric participants from the original BODY-Q field-test sample. The non-participants did not differ from participants in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, BMI or initial BODY-Q scale scores. Participants who had undergone bariatric surgery had a mean BMI of 49 (SD = 7) at time 1 and 35 (SD = 7) at time 2. Time since bariatric surgery was on average 2 years (SD = 0.5) (range 0.4 to 3 years). Percentage total weight loss ranged from 12 to 51 (mean 31, SD = 9). The difference in the proportion of patients to report an obesity-specific symptom on the BODY-Q checklist was significantly lower at follow-up for 5 of 10 symptoms. Participants improved on BODY-Q scales measuring appearance (of abdomen, back, body, buttocks, hips/outer thighs, inner thigh), body image and physical function (p < 0.001 on paired t-tests) and social function (p = 0.002 on paired t-test). These changes were associated with moderate to large effect sizes (0.60 to 2.29) and standardized response means (0.47 to 1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The BODY-Q provides a set of independently functioning scales that measure issues important to patients who undergo weight loss. BODY-Q scales were responsive to measuring clinical change associated with weight loss 2 years after bariatric surgery.

Patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life after chest masculinization in transgender men using the BODY-Q Chest module and the 15D instrument.

Chest masculinization is the most common surgical intervention in transgender men. Studies indicate good patient-reported postoperative satisfaction, but only recently has a patient-reported outcome instrument, the BODY-Q Chest module, been developed and validated for this patient group. This study aimed to evaluate postoperative patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the BODY-Q Chest module and the 15D after surgical chest masculinization in transgender men. The data comprised all patients receiving chest masculinization from 2005 to 2018. The patients were invited by letter to complete the BODY-Q Chest module and the 15D questionnaire in May 2020. Of the 220 patients invited, 123 completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 56%. The median chest and nipple scores were 76 and 68 out of 100, respectively. The number of secondary corrections was negatively associated with the chest score (p value < 0.001). The 15D index score was lower compared with the age-standardized male population (p value < 0.001), but similar to the age-standardized female population. Psychiatric comorbidity was associated with lower 15D index scores (p value < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the BODY-Q Chest module scores or the 15D index score among the different surgical techniques. The postoperative satisfaction with chest masculinization was good and in line with previous literature. HRQoL resembles that of the reference population. The periareolar technique is not associated with better satisfaction despite causing less scar burden. The negative association between the chest score and number of secondary corrections is unsettling and requires further examination in a prospective setting.

Minimal important difference in weight loss following bariatric surgery: Enhancing BODY-Q interpretability.

BODY-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for comprehensive assessment of outcomes specific to patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The clinical utility of BODY-Q is hampered by the lack of guidance on score interpretation. This study aimed to determine minimal important difference (MID) for assessment of BODY-Q. Prospective BODY-Q data from Denmark and the Netherlands pre- and post-bariatric surgery were collected. Two distribution-based methods were used to estimate MID by 0.2 standard deviations of baseline scores and the mean standardized response change of scores from baseline to 3-years postoperatively. In total, 5476 assessments from 2253 participants were included of which 1628 (72.3%) underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 586 (26.0%) sleeve gastrectomy, 33 (1.5%) gastric banding, and 6 (0.03%) other surgeries. The mean age was 45.1 ± 10.9 with a mean BMI of 46.6 ± 9.6. Baseline MID ranged from 1 to 4 in health-related quality of life (HRQL) and from 2 to 8 in appearance scales. The mean change of scores ranged from 4 to 5 in HRQL and from 4 to 7 in the appearance scales. The estimated MID for the change in BODY-Q HRQL and appearance scales ranged from 3 to 8 and is recommended for use to interpret BODY-Q scores and assess treatment effects in bariatric surgery.

Quantifying patients' expectations prior to bariatric surgery with the BODY-Q in an international multicentre cohort.

Many people living with obesity may have unrealistic expectations prior to undergoing bariatric surgery. These expectations can lead to frustration, regret and even worse psychological outcomes after surgery. Prior to undergoing bariatric surgery, patients completed the BODY-Q Expectations scale. This 15-item scale asks patients to imagine what their life will be like when 2 years have passed since bariatric surgery. Scores for expectations range from 0 (low) to 100 (high). Linear regression models were used to assess which of the patient characteristics could predict patients' expectations. From 2019 to 2020, a total of 333 patients were recruited from three different countries. The mean score on the BODY-Q Expectations scale was 73.1, ±20. Out of the 15 items on the Expectation scale, people living with obesity found it most likely that bariatric surgery would make them feel better and improve their energy, while it was reported least likely that they would look good without clothes on. Younger age (p = <.01) and race (non-white) (p = .046) were found to be significant predictors for higher scores on the Expectations scale. Participants who identified as non-white from the Netherlands and United States, and those aged under 40 years reported higher expectations compared with participants who identified as white race and were 40 years of age or older. Prior to bariatric surgery, patients aged under 40 years and those who identified as non-white for race had higher expectations that their life would change after bariatric surgery. These relevant findings should be considered when giving pre-operative counselling.

Factors Influencing Quality of Life after Massive Weight Loss-What Makes the Difference?

Although weight reduction in obesity and morbid obesity has been shown to improve associated comorbidities, there is currently no information on what influences quality of life after a large reduction in body weight. The present study looks at differences in patients' quality of life classified by mode and amount of weight loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed using a validated German version of the BODY-Q questionnaire. The internet-based questionnaire was distributed to patients via social media. RESULTS: 460 patients (443 female, 17 male) were interviewed for this study via "Surveymonkey". The comparison of conservative and surgical weight loss showed no significant difference in the patients' quality of life (p > 0.05). A high BMI correlates negatively with body image (p = 0.023 *), as does the specific assessment of most body regions. For example, a negative correlation was found between a high BMI and satisfaction with skin appearance (p < 0.001 *) and satisfaction with the inner thigh (p = 0.011 *). CONCLUSION: Increased weight loss is associated with a greater ability to maximise quality of life. The type of weight loss, whether conservative or surgical, can be neglected based on the present study. Bariatric surgery cannot be considered a universal solution to obesity. Body contouring interventions should also become a focus of therapy.

Body Image and Weight Loss Outcome After Bariatric Metabolic Surgery: a Mixed Model Analysis.

PURPOSE: As in nonsurgical weight loss populations, body image may partly explain differences in weight loss outcomes after surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the prospective association between body image and weight loss in a longitudinal cohort of patients up to 3 years after bariatric metabolic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The BODY-Q self-report questionnaire was used to assess body image. Linear mixed models evaluated associations of baseline body image with weight loss in the first year as well as associations of body image at 12 months and first-year change in body image with weight loss 12 to 36 months after surgery. RESULTS: Available body image data included 400 (100%), 371 (93%), 306 (77%), 289 (72%), and 218 (55%) patients at baseline and 4, 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Body image scores improved significantly until 12 months, followed by a gradual decline. Scores remained improved in comparison to baseline (ß = 31.49, 95% CI [27.8, 35.2], p < .001). Higher baseline body image was associated with less weight loss during the first year, and the effect size was trivial (ß = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.09, -0.01], p = .009). Body image and change in body image were not associated with weight loss 12 to 36 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Body image improved after bariatric metabolic surgery. Although no clinically relevant associations of body image with weight loss were demonstrated, the gradual decline in body image scores underlines the importance of long-term follow-up with regular assessment of this aspect of quality of life.

Predictors of improved psychological function after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Negative psychological sequelae have been reported after bariatric surgery. It is unclear which factors affect psychological function in the first postoperative years. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of significant predictors of improved psychological function following bariatric surgery by analyzing data from the BODY-Q questionnaire. SETTING: Multicenter prospective cohort in 3 centers located in The Netherlands and Denmark. METHODS: The BODY-Q questionnaire was used to assess 6 domains of health-related quality of life. The domain of interest, psychological function, consists of 10 questions from which a converted score of 0 (low) to 100 (high) can be calculated. Linear mixed models were used to analyze which patient characteristics were most predictive of the psychological function score. Secondary outcomes of interest were cross-sectional scores of psychological function and the impact of weight loss, and the effect of major short-term complications on psychological function. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 836 patients who underwent bariatric surgery from 2015 to 2020. Patients with lower expectations concerning weight loss (<40% desired total weight loss), higher educational level, no history of psychiatric illness, and employment before bariatric surgery demonstrated the highest psychological function scores after bariatric surgery. At 1 and 2 years after bariatric surgery, more weight loss was associated with significantly higher psychological function scores. Experiencing a major short-term complication did not significantly impact psychological function. CONCLUSIONS: Several relevant predictors of improved postoperative psychological function have been identified. This knowledge can be used to enhance patient education preoperatively and identify patients at risk for poor psychological functioning postoperatively.

Health state utility values in patients undergoing chest masculinization surgery.

BACKGROUND: Chest masculinization surgery is the most common gender-affirming procedure performed in transgender and gender-diverse individuals. While evidence on the health-related quality of life (HRQL) impact of chest masculinization is starting to emerge, data on health state utility values (HSUVs) associated with the surgery is largely missing. The objectives of this study were to estimate the HSUVs using EQ-5D for patients seeking chest masculinization surgery and assess the determinants of EQ-5D score at 6 months postoperatively. METHODS: Patients seeking chest masculinization at a single community plastic surgery clinic by 2 surgeons completed 3 patient-reported outcome measures - EQ-5D-3L, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, and BODY-Q Chest module - preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 6-months. Friedman test was used to assess the differences in PROM scores at the 3 timepoints. Simple and backward stepwise regression analyses of 6-month postoperative EQ-5D scores were performed. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients (mean [SD] age, 25.7 [6.9] years) were included. The mean [SD] EQ-5D scores at preoperative, postoperative 6 weeks and 6 months were 0.81 [0.15], 0.84 [0.15] and 0.87 [0.12], respectively. Postoperatively, problems were most frequently reported in the dimensions "pain/discomfort" and "anxiety/depression". Preoperative PHQ-9 score was a predictor of 6-month postoperative EQ-5D scores following simple (p < 0.01) and backward stepwise linear regression analysis (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Chest masculinization was associated with an improvement in overall HRL at 6 months postoperatively; however, this did not achieve statistical significance. Preoperative depression severity was a significant determinant of postoperative HRL. Consequently, additional support must be offered to patients who have a higher level of preoperative depression.

Validation of the BODY-Q Chest module in Finnish trans men undergoing chest wall masculinization.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of gender affirmation surgery is to ease gender dysphoria. In transgender men, chest wall masculinization is the most common gender affirmation surgery. The BODY-Q Chest module is currently the only instrument developed to measure health-related quality of life (HRQL) in men undergoing chest wall surgery. Linguistic validation and cultural adaption to Finnish were performed previously. The study aims to validate the BODY-Q Chest module in transgender men who have undergone surgical chest wall masculinization. METHODS: All transgender patients who underwent chest wall masculinization at Helsinki University Hospital between 2005 and 2018 were invited to the study. The BODY-Q Chest module comprises two scales-chest and nipple. Data were obtained using the BODY-Q Chest module, the 15D questionnaire, and specifically targeted items designed by the authors. The statistical analyses were conducted to exclude selection bias, evaluate validity of the instrument, and compare it to other instruments. RESULTS: Of the 220 patients invited, 123 participated in the survey (response rate 56%). Ceiling effects were observed with 18.9% and 20.5% scoring maximum points. Cronbach's alpha was 0.92 and 0.88 for the chest and nipple scales, respectively. In exploratory factor analysis, both scales loaded to one factor confirming unidimensionality. Correlation with the generic 15D questionnaire was low. CONCLUSIONS: The BODY-Q Chest module provides valid scores with sufficient consistency and reliability when measuring HRQL in transgender men undergoing chest wall masculinization. Moreover, it offers specificity that existing or generic instruments cannot provide. Ceiling effect was expected due to the postoperative status of participants.

Puboplasty as an integral step in massive weight loss abdominal contouring: a retrospective assessment of results, stability, and patients' satisfaction.

Ex-obese patients complain about abdomen and pubis deformities following massive weight loss, due to skin and soft tissue redundancy. Abdominoplasty is often the first corrective procedure performed, but residual mons pubis deformities may impair the final outcome, thus concomitant correction becomes necessary. Sixty patients were treated by the same surgeon between 2008 and 2018, 30 of them receiving only standard umbilical transposition abdominoplasty (A group), and 30 having concurrent monsplasty (AM group), namely skin excess removal, pubic suspension and skin redistribution following superolateral vectors, re-establishment of superficial fascia continuity, with or without liposuction. Retrospective comparison of the two groups included: a subjective evaluation through administration of questionnaires (BODY-QTM, a questionnaire assessing functional and aesthetic improvements after surgery, a questionnaire assessing the overall satisfaction), and an objective evaluation of pre- and post-operative pictures to estimate mons pubis suspension and result stability. Four minor complications were recorded: 1 wound dehiscence in A group, 3 seromas in AM group. All measured outcomes were higher in AM group, with statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in almost all the questionnaire and BODY-QTM items, and the photographic assessment confirmed higher degree of mons pubis suspension and superior result stability in AM group. We presented a standardized approach to mons pubis reshaping during abdominoplasty, through a straightforward, safe and quick procedure. Our experience supports the significance of the concomitant correction of abdominal and mons pubis deformities, improving the results of the surgery from both a subjective and objective point of view.

Danish translation and linguistic validation of new body-Q scales measuring expectations, eating behavior, distress, symptoms and work life.

The aim of this study was to translate and achieve a linguistical and cultural adaption of the newly developed BODY-Q Obesity Module for use in Danish patients. The BODY-Q Eating Module consists of five new modules aiming to measure expectations of weight-loss, eating behavior, eating-related distress, eating-related symptoms and work life. Translation and linguistic validation were performed using a combination of the recommendations developed by the World Health Organization and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. The translation was performed in five steps consisting of a forward translation, backward translation, expert panel meeting, cognitive debriefing and final proofreading. Each step aimed for a conceptual and cultural equal translation that was easily understood by patients. The discrepancies encountered in the forward translation included the use of layperson versus medical terminology, different tense and sentence structure. The harmonized version was then backwards translated which led to no conceptual differences. The expert panel reviewed the instrument in full and found two items needing correction in the instrument. Cognitive debriefing did not lead to any revisions and the instrument was well received by the participant group. Proofreading of the instrument led to few corrections in grammar and punctuation but no conceptual corrections. The translation of the BODY-Q Eating Module led to a conceptual and cultural equal version of the instrument for use in Danish patients. The instrument can be used in clinical care and research to inform advancements in the field of bariatric and body contouring surgery.

After weight loss, what skin removal procedure has the most effect using Body Q metrics?

BACKGROUND: Although postbariatric body contouring procedures have the ultimate goal of restoring quality of life, there currently exist minimal data assessing the effect of these procedures. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most important body contouring procedure for quality of life (QoL). SETTING: University Hospital, Online Questionnaire, Germany. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed using a validated version of the internet-based Body Q questionnaire, which was distributed among patients using social media and patient events. RESULTS: A total of 460 patients (443 female, 17 male) participated and fulfilled inclusion criteria. Of those patients, 191 (41.5%) had already undergone surgery, and the rest served as the control group. Patients in a postoperative status had a significantly (P < .05) higher QoL regarding all body regions. Additionally, patients who underwent body contouring surgery showed significantly higher QoL in regard to sexuality, society, body image, and psychosocial metrics. Abdominoplasty represents the most important procedure for QoL. The control group showed the greatest dissatisfaction in the area of the inner thighs. CONCLUSION: Body contouring procedures have been shown to significantly restore and enhance a patient's QoL. Conducting contouring surgeries is specifically associated with an increase in body image satisfaction as well as patient acceptance of certain body regions.

Hockey stick incision: a modified technique for chest wall masculinization.

BACKGROUND: Chest wall masculinization is often performed for transgender men in order to address gender dysphoria. Peri-areolar and double-incision mastectomy with free nipple grafts, are the most common techniques employed in chest masculinization surgery, but are limited by their relative inconsistency and inefficiency in reconstructing a natural anterior contour that comprehensively resembles that of a cis-masculine chest. The purpose of this study is two-fold. The first is to describe the "hockey stick" approach, which expands on the widely performed double-incision mastectomy to the axilla, with an additional step of revising lateral chest wall folds of tissue excess. This technique is scalable to the degree of pre-operative excess tissue on the anterior and lateral chest wall. The second is to compare the "hockey stick" incision to existing reconstructive options, with respect to clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Patients who received chest masculinization surgery at Yale-New Haven Hospital were included. A retrospective chart review, comprising demographic variables, procedural details, and post-operative events, was conducted. Selected modules from a validated survey instrument, the BODY-Q, were measured. Patients were classified by body mass index and incision, which included peri-areolar, inframammary fold, and "hockey stick" incision by date. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 73 (37.0%) participants completed the full survey and were included in the analysis. The "hockey stick" incision had comparable patient satisfaction and post-operative outcomes, compared to peri-areolar and double-incision mastectomy with free nipple graft techniques. Greater BMI patients had a higher incidence of wound dehiscence, compared to other weight classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The "hockey stick" incision is a readily performed, effective surgical technique for building a cis-masculine appearing chest in transgender men with efficient and predictable outcomes. While performed in patients with higher BMI, the "hockey stick" confers equivalent patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to peri-areolar and double-incision mastectomy.

Comparison of the Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire and the BODY-Q in Danish patients undergoing weight loss and body contouring surgery.

This study compared the measurement properties of the Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire-II (MAQOL-II) and the BODY-Q, to determine which was more suitable for measuring patient-reported outcome (PRO) in Danish bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BC) patients. We examined content validity against the COSMIN guidelines and compared psychometric performance using Rasch measurement theory methods and criteria. MAQOL-II data were obtained from the Danish Bariatric Surgery Database from September 2010 to November 2017, and BODY-Q data were collected from June 2015 to March 2018. The MAQOL-II failed to meet recommended standards for content validity, while all criteria were met for the BODY-Q. A total of 16 965 MAQOL-II and 2259 BODY-Q assessments were obtained. A random sample was selected from the MAQOL-II dataset to match the BODY-Q sample. Psychometrically, the BODY-Q performed better than the MAQOL-II. For example, Cronbach's α was 0.82 for the MAQOL-II vs ≥0.90 for all BODY-Q scales. Fifty percent (3/6) of MAQOL-II items had disordered thresholds, while all BODY-Q items had ordered thresholds (123/123). Poor item fit was revealed for 17% (1/6) of MAQOL-II and 8% (10/123) of BODY-Q items. For scale reliability, person separation index was 0.79 for the MAQOL-II and 0.88 (0.81-0.93) for the BODY-Q. In conclusion, the MAQOL-II does not meet today's standards for a rigorously developed PRO measure. The BODY-Q, on the other hand, gives substantial, accurate and interpretable measurement and should be recommended for use in PRO in BS and BC patients.