Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictive Factors of Satisfaction Following Breast Reconstruction: Do they Influence Patients?

  • Original Article
  • Breast surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

This study aims to analyze whether there is any patient- or treatment-related factor that can influence patients’ body perception after mastectomy and autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent immediate implant-based or DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Predictive factors analyzed included chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, body mass index, age, type of mastectomy, and follow-up length. The BREAST-Q was administered postoperatively almost 2 years from the last surgical procedure. Mean BREAST-Q scores were reported for the overall cohort and by modality for the postoperative period. A linear regression model was applied to all BREAST-Q scores with all predictor factors.

Results

In total, 325 patients were enrolled in this study (133 DIEP flap and 192 implant-based reconstructions). The DIEP flap reconstruction group with a previous nipple sparing mastectomy showed the highest scores. Patients with a longer follow-up were less satisfied than the ones with a shorter follow-up, which could be considered as an assessment of the outcome. No significant difference was reported between patients who underwent radiotherapy, chemotherapy or hormone therapy and those who did not. Furthermore, age and BMI had no influence on patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

This study is the first that groups a large number of patients and analyzes predictive factors of long-term satisfaction of patients undergoing breast reconstruction. This can be regarded as a pilot study to raise the awareness of everyone's clinical practice to predict the attitude that patients have after surgery and to prepare them in the best possible way.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M et al (eds) (2016) SEER Cancer statistics review. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jeevan R, Mennie JC, Mohanna PN et al (2016) National trends and regional variation in immediate breast reconstruction rates. Br J Surg 103:1147e1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2018) Analysis of outcomes and patient’s satisfaction following monolateral and bilateral mastectomy using BREAST-Q. Eur J Plast Surg 41:311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Signoretti M, Persichetti P (2018) Analysis of symmetry stability following implant-based breast reconstruction and contralateral management in 582 patients with long-term outcomes. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(4):936–940

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Laporta R, Sorotos M, Longo B, di Pompeo FS (2017) Breast reconstruction in elderly patients: risk factors, clinical outcomes, and aesthetic results. J Reconstr Microsurg 33(4):257–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Grasso A, Altomare V, Persichetti P (2018) Direct-to-implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(1):89e–91e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Longo B, Laporta R, Sorotos M, Pagnoni M, Gentilucci M, Santanelli di Pompeo F (2014) Total breast reconstruction using autologous fat grafting following nipple-sparing mastectomy in irradiated and non-irradiated patients. Aesthet Plast Surg 38(6):1101–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Iskandar ME, Dayan E, Lucido D et al (2015) Factors influencing incidence and type of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in an urban multidisciplinary cancer center. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:270ee276e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shiyanbola OO, Sprague BL, Hampton JM et al (2016) Emerging trends in surgical and adjuvant radiation therapies among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 122:2810e2818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Laporta R, Longo B, Sorotos M, Pagnoni M, Di Pompeo FS (2015) One-stage DIEP flap breast reconstruction: algorithm for immediate contralateral symmetrization. Microsurgery 36:7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Laporta R, Longo B, Sorotos M, di Pompeo FS (2017) Tips and tricks for DIEP flap breast reconstruction in patients with previous abdominal scar. Microsurgery 37(4):282–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Morrow M, Scott SK, Menck HR et al (2001) Factors influencing the use of breast reconstruction postmastectomy: a national cancer database study. J Am Coll Surg 192:1e8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Butz DR, Lapin B, Yao K et al (2015) Advanced age is a predictor of 30-day complications after autologous but not implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:253ee261e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wong SM, Freedman RA, Sagara Y et al (2017) Growing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy despite no improvement in long-term survival for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg 265(3):581–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM et al (2012) The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:293e302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM et al (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:345e353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2018) The role of appearance: definition of appearance-pain (App-Pain) and systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used in literature. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(5):1399–1409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2019) Patients satisfaction following cosmetic procedures: the role of App-Pain. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(5):1123e–1124e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Persichetti P, Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V (2019) Can philosophical aesthetics be useful for plastic surgery? The subjective, objective and relational view of beauty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 72:1856–1871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Savani L, Ciarrocchi S, Mirra C, Persichetti P (2020) The role of predictability in the choice of the type of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 147:156e–157e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG (2016) Effect of patient age on outcomes in breast reconstruction: results from a multicenter prospective study. J Am Coll Surg 223(6):745–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cereijo-Garea C, Pita-Fernández S, Acea-Nebril B, Rey-Villar R, García-Novoa A, Varela-Lamas C, Builes-Ramirez S, Seoane-Pillado T, Balboa-Barreiro V (2018) Predictive factors of satisfaction and quality of life after immediate breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q©. J Clin Nurs 27(7–8):1464–1474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Matthews H, Carroll N, Renshaw D, Turner A, Park A, Skillman J, McCarthy K, Grunfeld EA (2017) Predictors of satisfaction and quality of life following post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Psychooncology 26(11):1860–1865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nelson JA, Allen RJ Jr, Polanco T, Shamsunder M, Patel AR, McCarthy CM, Matros E, Dayan JH, Disa JJ, Cordeiro PG, Mehrara BJ (2019) Long-term patient-reported outcomes following postmastectomy breast reconstruction: an 8-year examination of 3268 patients. Ann Surg 270(3):473–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. van de Grift TC, Mureau MA, Negenborn VN, Dikmans RE, Bouman MB, Mullender MG (2020) Predictors of women’s sexual outcomes after implant-based breast reconstruction. Psychooncology 29(8):1272–1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mehta SK, Olawoyin O, Chouairi F, Duy PQ, Mets EJ, Gabrick KS, Le NK, Avraham T, Alperovich M (2020) Worse overall health status negatively impacts satisfaction with breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 73(11):2056–2062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Duraes EF, Schwarz GS, de Sousa JB, Duraes LC, Morisada M, Baker T, Djohan RS, Bernard SL, Moreira AA (2020) Factors influencing the aesthetic outcome and quality of life after breast reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. Ann Plast Surg 84(5):494–506

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gardfjell A, Dahlbäck C, Åhsberg K (2019) Patient satisfaction after unilateral oncoplastic volume displacement surgery for breast cancer, evaluated with the BREAST-QTM. World J Surg Oncol 17(1):1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. O’Connell RL, DiMicco R, Khabra K, O’Flynn EA, Desouza N, Roche N, Barry PA, Kirby AM, Rusby JE (2016) Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module. Breast Cancer Res Treat 160(1):79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Voineskos SH, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Pusic AL, Gibbons CJ (2020) Giving meaning to differences in BREAST-Q scores: minimal important difference for breast reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 145(1):11e–20e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No intramural or extramural funding supported any aspect of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant’Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa 1035-1039, 00189, Rome, Italy

    Fabio Santanelli Di Pompeo

  2. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Via Alvaro Del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy

    Mauro Barone, Rosa Salzillo, Annalisa Cogliandro, Beniamino Brunetti, Silvia Ciarrocchi, Stefania Tenna & Paolo Persichetti

  3. Research group ``To be and to appear: Objective indication to Plastic Surgery’’ of Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome, Rome, Italy

    Mauro Barone, Annalisa Cogliandro & Paolo Persichetti

  4. Institute of Philosophy of Scientific and Technological Activity, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Mauro Barone

  5. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, I.R.C.C.S. Istituto Galezzi, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Mario Alessandri Bonetti

  6. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry “Scuola Medica Salernitana”, PhD School of Translational Medicine of Development and Active Ageing, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Salerno, Italy

    Michail Sorotos

Authors
  1. Fabio Santanelli Di Pompeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mauro Barone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rosa Salzillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annalisa Cogliandro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Beniamino Brunetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Silvia Ciarrocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mario Alessandri Bonetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stefania Tenna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michail Sorotos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Paolo Persichetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauro Barone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any commercial associations that might pose or create a conflict of interest with information presented in this communication

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our Universities. Each subject provided written informed consent before participating in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santanelli Di Pompeo, F., Barone, M., Salzillo, R. et al. Predictive Factors of Satisfaction Following Breast Reconstruction: Do they Influence Patients?. Aesth Plast Surg 46, 610–618 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02584-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02584-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation