Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Patient-Reported Outcomes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Alone or in Combination with a Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh - A Detailed Analysis of the BREAST-Q and Overview of the Literature.
Dieterich, M; Angres, J; Stubert, J; Stachs, A; Reimer, T; Gerber, B.
Afiliação
  • Dieterich M; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock.
  • Angres J; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock.
  • Stubert J; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock.
  • Stachs A; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock.
  • Reimer T; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock.
  • Gerber B; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology - Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock.
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd ; 75(7): 692-701, 2015 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26257406
ABSTRACT

Background:

Complication rates and surgical outcomes are well reported for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) using supportive materials for the inferior pole of the breast. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are underrepresented. The aim of this study was to compare PRO in IBBR using implants alone or in combination with a synthetic mesh. Methods and

Methods:

PRO was measured in patients undergoing IBBR alone or in combination with a titanium-covered polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP® Bra). In this non-randomized observational trial PRO was retrospectively assessed using the validated self-reporting BREAST-Q. The raw responses of all questions applied in each domain and transformed BREAST-Q data using the Q-Score are presented.

Results:

Of 90 eligible women, 42 received IBBR alone and 48 received IBBR in combination with mesh. No differences in complication rates were observed. The return rate was 67.7 % and was comparable between the groups (p = 0.117). PRO revealed no differences regarding satisfaction with breast shape (p = 0.079), outcome (p = 0.604), nipple sensitivity (p = 0.502), preoperative information (p = 0.195), office staff (p = 0.462), psychosocial well-being (p = 0.370), sexual well-being (p = 0.508) and physical well-being (p = 0.654). Significant differences were noted regarding satisfaction with the surgeon (p = 0.013) and medical staff (p = 0.035) as well as the response behavior of certain questions of the sub-domains, thus helping to further stratify PRO with regards to aesthetic outcome. However, no differences were observed in the main BREAST-Q results.

Conclusion:

Use of the TiLOOP® Bra in IBBR results in comparable BREAST-Q scores compared with IBBR alone. Evaluating the BREAST-Q sub-domains helps to stratify PRO more profoundly and assists in interpreting the overall results and specific research questions.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Revista: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Revista: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article