RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A wide range of surgical techniques has been described for breast conservation treatment (Oncoplasty) based on breast size and shape, as well as tumor size and location. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding the indications for oncoplastic reconstruction. This study aims to identify the presurgical parameters associated with poor cosmetic outcomes post-breast conserving treatment. We hope this preoperative model can assist in evaluating whether there is a need for oncoplastic intervention. METHODS: The study group involved 136-adult females (age 35-77) who previously undergone breast conserving surgery and radiation, without oncoplastic intervention between 2007 and 2017. Patient demographics, medical and physical parameters were collected, and each patient filled Breast-QTM-questionnaire and six angles' photographs were taken. Patients' photographs were evaluated by 15 board-certified plastic surgeons. Both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential confounders for poor outcome in each of the experts' and patients' average-grades. RESULTS: Our analysis identified several variables correlated with poor surgical outcome: high BMI, high chest-wall-circumference, high breast-width and larger volume-removed. The general-aesthetic-result as evaluated by our experts was favorably influenced by an upper lateral quadrant tumor while the breast shape was negatively influenced by a lower medial quadrant tumor. Interestingly, no correlation was found between the patients' and panel's evaluations, nor did we find any clinically significant parameter related to the patients' reported well-being. CONCLUSION: Patients with high BMI, high chest-wall-circumference, large breast-width and larger inferomedial tumors could benefit from early plastic surgery evaluation and intervention. Patient's psychosocial well-being as well as sexual well-being are independent from positive surgical outcome evaluated by plastic surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .
RESUMEN
Rare reports linking textured breast implants to anaplastic large-cell lymphoma have generated controversies regarding their relative advantage over smooth implants. To evaluate trends in implant use in Israel, we sent a seven-item questionnaire to all active board-certified breast plastic surgeons in the country. About half responded. Approximately 60% of responders reported a moderate-to-considerable decrease in both the relative number of augmentation mammoplasty procedures and the use of implants during mastopexies in the last year. Nearly 40% had switched from textured to smooth implants to some extent. More than 40% still used textured implants for aesthetic procedures, and reconstructive procedures. Surgeons with more experience demonstrated a greater preference for smooth implants. The uncertainty regarding the safety of textured breast implants has led to a partial transition to the use of smoother implants and, importantly, to a general reduction in all breast-implant-based procedures.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) studies are essential in the assessment of surgical procedures in plastic surgery. One accepted and validated questionnaire is the BREAST-Q. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of PRO studies in plastic surgery utilizing the BREAST-Q questionnaire. METHODS: This study involved 2 steps: (1) a systematic review of 23 key criteria assessing the quality of survey research in studies utilizing the BREAST-Q that were published between 2015 and 2018; (2) a review of current guidance for survey research in journals related to plastic surgery and breast surgery which were included in the systematic review. RESULTS: Seventy-nine studies were included in the systematic review. Many key criteria were poorly reported: 51.9% of the studies did not provide a defined response rate and almost 90% did not provide a method for analysis of nonresponse error; 67.1% lacked a description of the sample's representativeness of the population of interest, and 82.3% did not present a sample size calculation. The methods used to analyze data were not described in 11.4% of the papers; in 27.8% the data analysis presented could not allow replication of the results. Of the 16 journals in the fields of plastic surgery and breast surgery for which the "instructions to authors" were reviewed, 15 (93.7%) did not provide any guidance for survey reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of key criteria are underreported by authors publishing their survey research in peer-reviewed journals in the fields of plastic and breast surgery. There is an urgent need to construct well-developed reporting guidelines for survey research in plastic surgery, and particularly in breast surgery.
