Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of the BREAST-Q™ Survey in the Prospective Evaluation of Reduction Mammaplasty Outcomes

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

Abstract

Introduction

BREAST-Q™ is a patient-reported outcomes survey instrument with a specific module that evaluates breast reduction surgery. It allows assessment of patient’s satisfaction with received treatment and evaluates the impact of surgery on different aspects of the patient’s quality of life. This article aims to assess the satisfaction and quality of life of patients who underwent reduction mammaplasty.

Materials and Methods

Women aged between 18 and 60 years, with a body mass index ranging from 19 to 30 kg/m2, who were already scheduled for reduction mammaplasty, were included in the study. The Brazilian version of the BREAST-Q™ Reduction/Mastopexy Module (preoperative 1.0 and postoperative 1.0 versions) was self-applied preoperatively and 1 and 6 months after the operation.

Results

One hundred and seven patients were included in the study and completed the 6-month follow-up. The median age was 33 years, and the median preoperative body mass index was 25 kg/m2. The superomedial pedicle was used in 96.3% of the cases, and the total median weight of the resected breast was 1115 g. There was a significant improvement in the scores of the scales: Psychosocial well-being, Sexual well-being, Physical well-being, and Satisfaction with the breasts compared to the preoperative assessment (p < 0.0001). The scales Satisfaction with the NAC and Satisfaction with the outcome, available only in the postoperative version, demonstrated high satisfaction rates at the two postoperative periods evaluated.

Conclusion

Reduction mammaplasty improved the quality of life and provided high levels of patient satisfaction with outcomes 1 and 6 months postoperatively.

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Araújo CDM, Veiga DF, Hochman BS, Abla LEF, Oliveira ACS, Novo NF, Veiga-Filho J, Ferreira LM (2014) Cost-utility of reduction mammaplasty assessed for the Brazilian public health system. Aesthet Surg J 34(8):1198–1204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beraldo FN, Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Garcia ES, Vilas-Bôas GS, Juliano Y, Sabino-Neto M, Ferreira LM (2016) Sexual function and depression outcomes among breast hypertrophy patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Plast Surg 76:379–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Freire M, Neto MS, Garcia EB, Quaresma MR, Ferreira LM (2007) Functional capacity and postural pain outcomes after reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1149–1156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ducic I, Iorio ML, Al-Attar A (2010) Chronic headaches/migraines: extending indications for breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:44–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Collins ED, Kerrigan CL, Kim M, Lowery JC, Striplin DT, Cunningham B, Wilkins EG (2002) The effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical interventions in relieving the symptoms of macromastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:1556–1566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fernandes PM, Sabino-Neto M, Veiga DF, Abla LEF, Mundim CDA, Juliano Y, Ferreira LM (2007) Back pain: an assessment in breast hypertrophy patients. Acta Ortop Bras 15:227–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fonseca CC, Garcia ES, Félix GAA, Ferreira LM, Rocha MJAB, Veiga DF, Carvalho MM (2016) Body investment and body satisfaction in women undergoing reduction mammaplasty. In: Jorge RN, Mascarenhas T, Duarte JA, Ramos I, Costa ME, Figueiral MH, Pinho O, Brandão S, Roza T, Tavares JMRS (eds) BioMedWomen: Proceedings of the international conference on clinical and bioengineering for women’s health, CRC Press, Porto, pp 125

  8. Garcia ES, Veiga DF, Sabino-Neto M, Cardoso FNB, Batista IO, Leme RM, Cabral IC, Novo NF, Ferreira LM (2015) Sensitivity of the nipple-areola complex and sexual function following reduction mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 35:193–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Guimarães PAMP, Resende VCL, Neto MS, Seito CL, Brito MJA, Abla LEF, Veiga DF, Ferreira LM (2015) Sexuality in aesthetic breast surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 39:993–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barbosa AF, Lavoura PH, Boffino CC, Siqueira CM, Costa MP, Junior JEL, Tanaka C (2013) The impact of surgical breast reduction on the postural control of women with breast hypertrophy. Aesthet Plast Surg 37:321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, ISAPS (2016) International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic–Procedures Performed in 2015. ISAPS—ISAPS Global Statistics; http://www.isaps.org/news/isaps-global-statistics. Accessed: 02 March 2017

  12. Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica. Current situation of plastic surgery. http://www2.cirurgiaplastica.org.br/midias/pesquisas. Accessed 06 March 2017

  13. American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery’s, ASAPS. (2016) Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank Statistics 2015. http://www.surgery.org/media/statistics. Accessed 02 March 2017

  14. Neto MS, Demattê MF, Freire M, Garcia ÉB, Quaresma M, Ferreira LM (2008) Self-esteem and functional capacity outcomes following reduction mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 28:417–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coriddi M, Nadeau M, Taghizadeh M, Taylor A (2013) Analysis of satisfaction and well-being following breast reduction using a validated survey instrument: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:285–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carty MJ, Duclos A, Gu X, Elele N, Orgill D (2012) Patient satisfaction and surgeon experience: a follow-up to the reduction mammaplasty learning curve study. Eplasty 12:22

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gonzalez MA, Glickman LT, Aladegbami B, Simpson RL (2012) Quality of life after breast reduction surgery: a 10-year retrospective analysis using the Breast Q questionnaire: does breast size matter? Ann Plast Surg 69:361–363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sbalchiero J, Cordanto-Nopoulos F, Silva C, Derchain S (2001) Breast Q questionaire, translation process to portuguese language and their application on breast cancer patients. Rev Bras Cir Plást 28:549–552

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, Lozza L, Galimberti V, Merson M, Agresti R, Veronesi P, Greco M (1991) Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 27:1395–1400

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Franco T (2002) Princípios de cirurgia plástica, 1st edn. Atheneu, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Cano SJ (2012) Use of the BREAST-Q in clinical outcomes research. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:166–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (2012) The Breast-Q. Breast-Q Patient Reported Outcomes Instrument. http://webcore.mskcc.org/breastq. Accessed 02 March 2017

  23. Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S, Klassen A, McCarthy C, Collins ED, Cordeiro PG (2007) Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:823–837

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pusic AL, Reavey PL, Klassen AF, Scott A, McCarthy C, Cano SJ (2009) Measuring patient outcomes in breast augmentation: introducing the BREAST-Q augmentation module. Clin Plast Surg 36:23–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Siegel SE, Castellan NJ Jr (2006) Estatística não paramétrica para ciências do comportamento, 2nd edn. Artmed, Porto Alegre

    Google Scholar 

  26. World Health Organization, WHO (1946) Constitution of the World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en. Accessed 05 March 2017

  27. Cabral IV, Garcia EDS, Sobrinho RN, Pinto NLL, Juliano Y, Veiga-Filho J, Ferreira LM, Veiga DF (2016) Increased capacity for work and productivity after breast reduction. Aesthet Surg J 37:57–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bozola AR, Longato FM, Bozola AP (2011) Geometric analysis of the shapes of the beautiful breast and breast implants based on the golden ratio (Phi): practical application. Rev Bras Cir Plást 26:94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Freire M, Neto MS, Garcia EB, Quaresma MR, Ferreira LM (2004) Quality of life after reduction mammaplasty. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 38:335–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Braig D, Eisenhardt SU, Stark GB, Penna V (2016) Impact of increasing age on breast reduction surgery: a single centre analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69:482–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Saariniemi K, Luukkaala T, Kuokkanen H (2011) The outcome of reduction mammaplasty is affected more by psychosocial factors than by changes in breast dimensions. Scand J Surg 100:105–109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kalliainen LK, Health Policy Committee ASPS (2012) ASPS clinical practice guideline summary on reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:785–789

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sood R, Mount DL, Coleman JJ 3rd, Ranieri J, Sauter S, Mathur P, Thurston B (2003) Effects of reduction mammaplasty on pulmonary function and symptoms of macromastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:688–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott A, Alderman A, Pusic AL (2014) Interpreting clinical differences in BREAST-Q scores: minimal important difference. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:173–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), Brazil, provided a scientific initiation scholarship for RNS, which allowed her participation in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Universidade do Vale do Sapucaí, Pouso Alegre, MG, Brazil

    Isaias Vieira Cabral, Edgard da Silva Garcia, Natália Lana Larcher Pinto & Joel Veiga-Filho

  2. Medical School, Universidade do Vale do Sapucaí, Pouso Alegre, MG, Brazil

    Rebecca Neponucena Sobrinho

  3. Department of Bioestatistics, Universidade do Vale do Sapucaí, Pouso Alegre, MG, Brazil

    Yara Juliano

  4. Department of Bioestatistics, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Yara Juliano

  5. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Lydia Masako Ferreira & Daniela Francescato Veiga

  6. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Universidade do Vale do Sapucaí, Av. Prefeito Tuany Toledo, 470, Pouso Alegre, MG, CEP 37550-000, Brazil

    Daniela Francescato Veiga

Authors
  1. Isaias Vieira Cabral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edgard da Silva Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Neponucena Sobrinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Natália Lana Larcher Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yara Juliano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joel Veiga-Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lydia Masako Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniela Francescato Veiga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Author Contributions

IVC and DFV conceived the study and participated in study design, surgical procedures, and manuscript draft. ESG, RNS, JVF and NLLP participated in surgical procedures and patients’ follow-up, and contributed to acquisition and interpretation of data. YJ participated in the analysis and interpretation of data. LMF participated in the design and coordination of the study. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Francescato Veiga.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors state no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

The Ethical Committee of the Universidade do Vale do Sapucaí has reviewed and approved the study protocol (protocol number CAEE30798114.3.0000.5102).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cabral, I.V., da Silva Garcia, E., Sobrinho, R.N. et al. Use of the BREAST-Q™ Survey in the Prospective Evaluation of Reduction Mammaplasty Outcomes. Aesth Plast Surg 42, 388–395 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-1009-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-1009-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation