Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zertifizierte Brustzentren in Deutschland

Beteiligung der Plastischen Chirurgie

Certified breast centers in Germany

How much is plastic surgery involved?

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Diese Arbeit soll den aktuellen Stand der Kooperation zwischen Plastischen Chirurgen und Gynäkologen in zertifizierten Brustzentren darstellen. Die Rate der Brustrekonstruktionen nach nichtbrusterhaltender Therapie ist mit 8–13% sehr niedrig. Der Plastische Chirurg ist auch bei zertifizierten Brustzentren häufig nicht Teil des Teams.

Methoden

Über das Westdeutsche Brustzentrum (WBC) wurden 220 im Jahr 2007 an das WBC angeschlossene Kliniken angeschrieben. 80 Kliniken schickten einen Fragebogen zurück. Die Untersuchung basiert auf den Daten von ca. 24.000 Patientinnen.

Ergebnisse

Von den 80 Kliniken waren zum Zeitpunkt der Untersuchung 60 Kliniken (75%) als Brustzentrum zertifiziert. Die Zertifizierung erfolgte nach unterschiedlichen Vorgaben: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, DKG/DGS (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft/Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie), EUSOMA, andere. In 8 Kliniken (10%) wurde ein Plastischer Chirurg als operativ tätiger Facharzt und Teil des Brustzentrums benannt. Die meisten Brustzentren (44 von 80 Kliniken) arbeiten mit 3 bis 4 operativ tätigen Fachärzten.

Diskussion

Die Zusammenarbeit innerhalb eines Brustzentrums zwischen Gynäkologen und Plastischen Chirurgen kann ausgebaut werden. Nicht jede Frau braucht nach einer Mastektomie einen (mikrochirurgischen) Brustaufbau, aber jede betroffene Frau hat das Recht auf eine Aufklärung über alle zur Verfügung stehenden Rekonstruktionsverfahren inklusive der mikrochirurgischen Verfahren.

Abstract

Introduction

This study was designed to assess the degree of cooperation between plastic surgeons and gynecologists in certified breast centers in Germany. The rate of breast reconstruction after mastectomy remains low at 8–13%. In certified breast centers plastic surgeons are often not members of the team.

Methods

A total of 220 hospitals affiliated to the West German Breast Center (WBC) were contacted in 2007 and 80 breast centers and hospitals returned the questionnaire. This study is based on the data of approximately 24,000 patients.

Results

At the time of the investigation 60 out of the 80 hospitals (75%) were certified breast centers. Many different criteria have been applied for certified breast centers: the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, the DKG/DGS (German Cancer Society/German Society of Senology), EUSOMA and others. In 8 hospitals (10%) a plastic surgeon was part of the team in the breast center. Most breast centers (44 out of 80) function with 3–4 attending specialists for breast surgery.

Discussion

The cooperation between gynecologists and plastic surgeons within a breast center can be strengthened. A microsurgical breast augmentation is not the ideal solution for every patient with a mastectomy but every patient has the right to obtain complete information about the whole spectrum of breast reconstruction including microsurgical free flap reconstruction.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V. (Hrsg) (2004) Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms der Frau. Eine nationale S3-Leitlinie. Informationszentrum für Standards in der Onkologie, Frankfurt

  2. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft und Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie (2009) Erhebungsbogen für Brustzentren der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Senologie. Germany

  3. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V. (Hrsg) (2008) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, 1. Aktualisierung. Informationszentrum für Standards in der Onkologie, Berlin

  4. Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW (2000) Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simple mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer 36:1938–1943

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Alderman AK, Hawley ST, Waljee J et al (2007) Correlates of referral practices of general surgeons to plastic surgeons for mastectomy reconstruction. Cancer 109:1715–1720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alderman AK, Kuhn LE, Lowery JC, Wilkins EG (2007) Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. J Am Coll Surg 204:7–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alderman AK, McMahon L Jr, Wilkins EG (2003) The national utilization of immediate and early delayed breast reconstruction and the effect of sociodemographic factors. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:695–703; discussion 704–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Behranwala KA, Dua RS, Ross GM et al (2006) The influence of radiotherapy on capsule formation and aesthetic outcome after immediate breast reconstruction using biodimensional anatomical expander implants. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:1043–1051

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Christian CK, Niland J, Edge SB et al (2006) A multi-institutional analysis of the socioeconomic determinants of breast reconstruction: a study of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Ann Surg 243:241–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. EUSOMA (2000) The requirements of a specialist breast unit, EUSOMA. Eur J Cancer 36:2288–2293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL (2009) Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:395–408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mathes DW, Kumar N, Ploplys E (2009) A survey of North American burn and plastic surgeons on their current attitudes toward facial transplantation. J Am Coll Surg 208:1051–1058 e1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mathes DW, Schlenker R, Ploplys E, Vedder N (2009) A survey of north american hand surgeons on their current attitudes toward hand transplantation. J Hand Surg Am 34:808–814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meyer-Marcotty MV, Hankiss J, Flugel M, Redeker J (2007) Breast reconstruction for patients with breast carcinoma: an analysis based on the data of 4,335 patients from 16 hospitals. Chirurg 78:637–642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. National Cancer Institute UDoHaS, Bethesda MD (1990) Breast reconstruction: a matter of choice. National Cancer Institute, US

  16. Perry NM (2001) Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. EUSOMA Working Party. Eur J Cancer 37:159–172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Polednak AP (2000) Geographic variation in postmastectomy breast reconstruction rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:298–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Polednak AP (2001) How frequent is postmastectomy breast reconstructive surgery? A study linking two statewide databases. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:73–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Reaby LL (1998) Reasons why women who have mastectomy decide to have or not to have breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 101:1810–1818

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Saulis AS, Mustoe TA, Fine NA (2007) A retrospective analysis of patient satisfaction with immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction: comparison of three common procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1669–1677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Spear SL, Onyewu C (2000) Staged breast reconstruction with saline-filled implants in the irradiated breast: recent trends and therapeutic implications. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:930–942

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tonseth KA, Hokland BM, Tindholdt TT et al (2008) Quality of life, patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome after breast reconstruction using DIEP flap or expandable breast implant. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61:1188–1194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Plastische, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Staße. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland

    M.V. Meyer-Marcotty, J. Redeker, K. Knobloch, M.A. Altintas & P.M. Vogt

Authors
  1. M.V. Meyer-Marcotty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Redeker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Knobloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M.A. Altintas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P.M. Vogt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M.V. Meyer-Marcotty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer-Marcotty, M., Redeker, J., Knobloch, K. et al. Zertifizierte Brustzentren in Deutschland. Chirurg 82, 526–530 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-010-1993-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-010-1993-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation