Abstract
Background
Patients’ expectations of an anticipated timeline of recovery and fear of anesthesia in aesthetic breast surgery have not been studied.
Objective
This study aims to assess patient anxiety, expectations, and satisfaction after Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways for aesthetic breast surgery and the progress of postoperative recovery.
Materials and methods
All consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast surgery between April 2021 and August 2022 were included in this single-center prospective cohort study. The ERAS protocol consists of more than 20 individual measures in the pre-, intra-, and postoperative period. Epidemiological data, expectations, and recovery were systematically assessed with standardized self-assessment questionnaires, including the International Pain Outcome Questionnaire (IPO), the BREAST-Q or BODY-Q, and data collection forms.
Results
In total, 48 patients with a median of 30 years of age were included. Patients returned to most daily activities within 5 days. Eighty-eight percent of patients were able to accomplish daily activities sooner than expected. The time of return to normal daily activities was similar across all procedure types. There was no statistically significant difference regarding postoperative satisfaction between patients who recovered slower (12%) and patients who recovered as fast or faster (88%) than anticipated (p=0.180). Patients reporting fear of anesthesia in the form of conscious sedation significantly diminished from 17 to 4% postoperatively (p<0.001).
Conclusion
Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways for aesthetic breast surgery are associated with rapid recovery and high patient satisfaction. This survey study provides valuable insight into patients’ concerns and perspectives that may be implemented in patient education and consultations to improve patient satisfaction following aesthetic treatments.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
There is an ever-increasing pressure to perform surgeries in the ambulatory setting, primarily to improve cost-effectiveness. This trend has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. Many studies have documented the safety and feasibility of ambulatory breast surgery in selected patients. Most of these studies have focused on outcomes, namely complications and readmissions [2, 3].
Understanding factors that enhance recovery and patient comfort, and increase patient satisfaction is a requisite for maintaining a successful practice. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS), also known as fast-track surgery (FTS), consists of interdisciplinary multimodal perioperative interventions aimed to optimize the recovery process, including reducing hospital stay or avoiding hospitalization. The benefits of ERAS protocols have been studied in various surgical subspecialties [4]. Although research aiming at reducing opioid consumption and hospital stay dates to the 1990s, the term “enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)” has not gained much attention in cosmetic plastic surgery [5]. Little research has been done regarding functional recovery of patients after aesthetic breast surgery [6].
Patient satisfaction after surgery correlates with the fulfillment of patients’ presurgical expectations [7]. Unrealistic expectations predict an unsatisfactory outcome [8]. Patients believe that anesthesia and recovery are relatively simple and, therefore, restriction of activities after aesthetic surgery is not necessary [9, 10]. Divergence between actual experience and expectations impacts treatment adherence and the patients’ satisfaction [11]. Only one study examining patient satisfaction with postoperative recovery was identified in a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes following cosmetic surgery [12]. This gap of knowledge may lead physicians to undervalue the aspects of recovering.
This study’s objective is to investigate a) patients’ expectations about recovery timelines as well as concerns before undergoing aesthetic breast surgeries without general anesthesia and b) to evaluate recovery and satisfaction after enhanced ERAS pathways for aesthetic breast surgery.
Material and Methods
Patients
The local Ethics Committee gave their permission to this prospective study (project no. 144/21). Informed consent for prospective analysis was obtained. All consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast surgery from April 2021 to August 2022 were included in this study. Underage patients and patients requiring revision surgeries within the first week were excluded, as were patients with incomplete self-assessment questionnaires or incomplete clinical study reports. The ERAS protocol and anesthesia was performed as previously described by the authors [13]. All patients received 1000 mg acetaminophen and 1000 mg tranexamic acid PO 2 h before surgery, as well as dexamethasone 4 mg IV before starting the surgery (Table 1).
The authors described preoperative counseling explicitly in previously published work [13]. Patients engaged in minimal work-related physical activity and were advised to take 7 days off work. Return to moderate aerobic physical activity or strenuous arm workout was discouraged before the fifth postoperative week. Comprehensive perioperative instructions were attached to the informed consent form and sent via e-mail before surgery.
Surgery and Locoregional Anesthesia
All intercostal blocks were performed with ropivacaine 0.375%, 4 mg of dexamethasone, and epinephrine (1:100.000). Immediately after sedation, the surgeon injected 5 ml in the subcostal region for intercostal block between the third and the seventh ribs in a standard fashion [14]. For hemostasis and local anesthesia, lidocaine 0.1% with epinephrine (1:500.000) was injected into the incision sites (Table 1), observing previously described maximum dosages of 28 mg/kg [15]. Ten minutes after surgery, patients were allowed to drink and, in the absence of nausea, to eat afterward. Patients were given permission for discharge after surgery if they tolerated food, could urinate, walk alone, had no unbearable pain, and had no nausea. Patients were requested to have the assistance of a caregiver at home on the first night. Patients received a discharge letter including postoperative instructions, follow-up appointments, and the surgeons’ cell phone number. The surgeons made a postoperative follow-up phone call later the same day.
Questionnaires and Clinical Study Reports
Clinical study reports were designed involving all members of the team as easy-to-use data collection forms with sufficient and unambiguous data. Satisfaction with the operative result was assessed with the BREAST-Q Augmentation, BREAST-Q Reduction/Mastopexy, or BODY-Q Chest module. Anxiety and satisfaction regarding anesthesia were assessed with 5 items from the validated International Pain Outcome Questionnaire (IPO) [16]. Items from the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) were chosen based on expert opinions and literature research [17, 18]. The development of the questionnaire has been described elsewhere [13]. Primary and secondary outcome parameters and timing of assessments were:
-
Structured self-assessment questionnaire for demographic data (gender, age, BMI, comorbidities, medication, and ASA score) completed before the first consultation.
-
Patient-reported anxieties and satisfaction regarding anesthesia were assessed by the IPO administered before and the day after surgery.
-
Patient-reported anticipated and actual recovery in the first postoperative week was assessed with a self-assessment questionnaire before and 10 days after surgery.
-
Clinical study reports with descriptive data regarding surgery and anesthesia were assessed on the operation day by the circulating nurse.
-
Patient-reported satisfaction with the operative result was assessed with the BREAST-Q Augmentation, BREAST-Q Reduction/Mastopexy or BODY-Q Chest module administered before the first consultation and at least 4 weeks postoperatively.
Statistics
For continuous variables with a normal distribution, the mean and standard deviation (95% confidence interval) are presented, whereas for non-normal data, the median and interquartile range. The statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS Version 28 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). The correlations between the various parameters were evaluated using a Spearman correlation matrix. P ≤0.05 was used to define significance. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to access group differences across nonparametric variables.
Results
No patient dropped out, two were excluded due to operative revision, and one because of an incomplete questionnaire. Forty-eight patients with a median (IQR) of 30 (36–25) years of age were included in this study. Eighty-one percent of participants were women, and the median (IQR) BMI was 24 (26–22) kg/m2. Comorbidities, medication, and ASA score are presented in Table 2.
Nearly half of all surgeries performed were breast augmentations. Breast reductions comprised 35% and gynecomastia about 17% of all surgical interventions. Mastopexy was performed in 23% of patients. Sixty-nine percent of the surgeries involved additional procedures such as liposuction.
The median operating time was 02:12 (IQR: 02:49–01:36) hours. Gynecomastia corrections were the shortest procedures (median (IQR) 1:42 (1:52–1:09) hours) and breast reductions the longest (median (IQR) 2:37 (2:58–1:52) hours). The median (IQR) duration of breast augmentation (including implant and fat graft only, as well as hybrid breast augmentation) was 2:14 (2:49–1:35) hours.
The average doses of administered alfentanil and propofol were, respectively, 0.31 µg/kg/min (minimum 0.02, maximum 0.83 µg/kg/min) and 4.43 mg/kg/h (minimum 2.27, maximum 6.21 mg/kg/h).
Satisfaction with Outcome
Our results show a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with breast appearance, as well as psychological and sexual well-being postoperatively (Table 3). There was an increase of 32 points (p≤0.001) in patient satisfaction with breasts, 18 points (p≤0.001) in psychosocial well-being, and 10 points (p≤0.001) in sexual well-being. Sixty-two percent of the respondents reported 100% satisfaction with the outcome.
Apprehension Before and After Anesthesia
The greatest preoperative concerns of patients were reported using a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very strong) rating scale, and we observed a statistically significant reduction postoperatively (p≤0.001) in all categories (Fig. 1). In this series of outpatient aesthetic breast surgery under sedation, intercostal block, and tumescent anesthesia, most patients reported little or no concern about anesthesia (median (IQR) 2 (2–1)) and about feeling pain, nausea, or dyspnea (median (IQR) 2 (3–1)) before the procedure. This apprehension faded postoperatively, and patients revealed having no fear (median (IQR) was 1 (2–1) in all categories). Moderate, strong, or very strong concerns regarding the anesthesia in the form of conscious sedation were expressed by 17% of patients before the surgery and only by 4% of the patients after the surgery (Fig. 1).
There was no statistically significant correlation between preoperative anxiety and the dose of alfentanil or between anxiety and the dose of propofol required during surgery (rs= − 0.286) (Table 4). A power analysis for estimation of the sample size which compared the preoperative and postoperative concerns showed that the effect size of our study was extremely large (power 1.000, alpha 0.050).
Anticipated and Actual Recovery
Patients returned to most daily activities within 5 days after surgery. Seventy-one percent of patients were able to perform most daily activities sooner than anticipated (p<0.001). Patients were able to wash themselves, climb stairs, and go for walks statistically significantly earlier than anticipated (Table 5). The first activities to be performed were walking around the house and climbing stairs. Patients were able to dress or undress and go for a walk outside on the following day, and to cook a meal and shower on the second postoperative day. Activities that required a longer recovery time to be accomplished were doing housework and shopping (on the fourth postoperative day) as well as driving a car (on the fifth day) (Table 5).
The speed of recovery did not correlate with the operating time (rs= 0.068, p=0.650) (Table 6). Neither the alfentanil nor the propofol dosages correlated significantly with the speed of recovery (Table 6). Recovery time was similar across categories, patients needed a median (IQR) of 2 (2–1), 2(3–1), and 2 (2–1) days after breast augmentation, reduction, and gynecomastia surgeries, respectively, to return to normal daily activities. Eighty-eight percent of patients required less time or exactly the same time to recover as anticipated preoperatively. However, patients with a slower recovery than anticipated were not less satisfied with the aesthetic result than patients whose recovery was as fast or faster than anticipated (rank-sum test: p=0.180). Power analysis showed a power of 0.983 to detect a difference of alpha 0.05 between preoperative concerns and postoperative recovery.
Discussion
We believe this is the first study to assess patients’ anxiety, expectations, satisfaction, and actual recovery time after ERAS pathways for outpatient aesthetic breast surgery.
Patients returned to most daily activities within 5 days (Table 5). A retrospective study of data collected between 1982 and 1990 suggested that reduction in surgical trauma enabled patients to lift objects up to 20 pounds, drive a car, return to work, and lie prone on their breasts 24 h after submuscular breast augmentation and general endotracheal anesthesia [19]. In a prospective study of patients after submuscular breast augmentations, patients resumed driving after 5.4 ± 4.1 (min: 1, max: 21) days after surgery. However, no details were given on the number and type of combined procedures and the type of anesthesia [6]. The literature pertaining to exercise after breast surgery shows no substantial evidence of adverse outcomes due to early postoperative exercise compared with delayed exercise [20]. Recent evidence suggests that exercise, including bench press, 1 week after breast augmentation does not increase complication rates [21]. Nevertheless, additional studies may be required to determine the optimum risk–benefit ratio between overly aggressive and overly cautious recovery.
Our findings corroborate that with optimal perioperative protocols complex surgical operations can be performed in an outpatient setting [22]. Studies suggesting that the operation time predicts the fitness of discharge do not consider the impact of general anesthesia on recovery [23], although a correlation between the type of anesthesia and the quality of recovery has been demonstrated [24, 25]. Under the standardized anesthesia protocol described herein, the range of operating times (min: 46 min; max: 293 min) did not correlate with the recovery time within the first postoperative week (Table 6). This may be explained by the overall low doses of propofol and alfentanil and their relatively short elimination half-life (558 ± 218 and 275 ± 94 minutes, respectively) [26]. Patients required a median (IQR) propofol dose of 4.97 (6.21–2.27) mg/kg/h, in contrast to the concentrations used in total i.v. anesthesia of 9 mg/kg/h as initial dose and 6 mg/kg/h as the maintenance dose [27]. As for alfentanil, the median (IQR) infusion rate was 0.33 (0.83–0.02) µg/kg/min, as opposed to the dose used in total i.v. anesthesia of 100 to 240 µg/kg/min [27]. The higher doses of propofol and alfentanil typically administered in general anesthesia difficult recovery, especially in the first 48 h, and therefore are more likely to require inpatient hospitalization postoperatively. The authors have previously shown that patients after aesthetic breast surgery according to the ERAS protocol described herein are recovering sooner than expected after general surgery (drinking, eating, and voiding within a median (IQR) of 0:45 (1:19–0:25) h, discharge within a median of 2:40 (3:43–1:58) h [13].
The risk of thromboses in cosmetic surgery, including breast and face surgeries, abdominoplasties, and liposuctions, is estimated at 0.9% and peeks at approximately 1 week after surgery [28]. Early mobilization and recovery are decisive to prevent thromboembolisms. Most patients in this study walked in their house or apartment and climbed stairs on the day of the surgery, which would not be possible in a hospital room, especially after general surgery. A significantly lower incidence of thromboembolism has been observed in a large published series of patients undergoing elective plastic surgery under total intravenous anesthesia [29]. Discussion on the association of thromboembolic events with operative time must acknowledge the potentially confounding effect of general anesthesia. Pain, nausea, and drowsiness are the most frequent causes for delaying discharge [30]. Evidence has been presented that opioid-sparing anesthesia improves recovery without compromising patient safety and pain control [13, 25].
Seventy-one percent of patients required as much time to recover as anticipated preoperatively or less. Evidence has been presented that preoperative information describing the recovery process reduces the length of hospital stay [31]. Well-informed patients present faster time to activity and recovery [38], are more satisfied with their overall outcome [41], and consume fewer opioids [32]. Communication gaps and unrealistic expectations increase the risk of postoperative complications [33]. Patients provided with adequate information and details about what to expect regarding the process of care and recovery are more satisfied with their overall outcome [34]. We, therefore, assume that providing the information described herein during preoperative counseling can further enhance recovery, increase satisfaction, and reduce opioid consumption. Because of the amount and importance of preoperative information, we recommend two appointments for comprehensive counseling and the use printed and digital formats.
Since stress and anxiety influence pain perception, immune function, and wound healing, the ERAS protocol included numerous measures to reduce anxiety. Structured follow-up calls, 12 to 24 h after ambulatory surgery potentially reduces patients’ self-reported pain and anxiety, and improves safety and outcomes by increasing compliance while reducing the traveling times, infrastructure needs, and contagion risk during the COVID-19 pandemic [35,36,37,38]. Having cellular telephone access has promising benefits for the patient–physician relationship [39] and is recommended to account for the risks of hematoma and the rare risk of lidocaine intoxication that may occur in the first 24 h after surgery [17]. Information and behavioral instructions have the potential to minimize stress and anxiety and improve postoperative outcomes [40]. Only six patients had a slower recovery than they had anticipated. Regarding the patients that recovered as fast or faster than they expected, the speed of recovery did not affect overall satisfaction (Table 6).
Preexisting mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse, have been noted to be important preoperative risk factors for adverse outcomes, resulting in increased likelihood of hospital-based acute care postoperatively [41]. Besides ASA III classification, which includes BMI ≥40, the strength of correlation and optimal cutoff values of patient selection parameters for outpatient care are unknown [42]. Since ambulatory surgery has many advantages, further studies are needed for appropriate patient selection (Table 7).
This study must acknowledge some limitations. This study did not have matched controls of patients undergoing a standard perioperative model of care or standard general anesthesia. However, the empirical comparison of the ERAS pathway with the author’s prior experience shows that recovery is much shorter and less painful, especially in the first 24 h with the protocol described herein. Besides, because ERAS has been shown to be more effective when compared to standard protocol, doing so was deemed unethical. A response bias regarding recovery expectations can be ruled out since only questions regarding the earliest time to shower and drive after surgery were occasionally asked. We only present data from one institution; thus, the findings might not be generalizable to other institutions. Additionally, alternative anesthetic methods might not be compatible with the findings of this study. Because of the heterogeneity of professional activities, enhanced postoperative recovery is more reliably determined by the return to comparable activities of daily living. To satisfy the call for the use of reproducible and validated questionnaires, studies may be inclined to use established and validated instruments, compromising sensitivity and consistency [12]. We have used the BREAST-Q questionnaire to evaluate satisfaction after fat grafting to the breast, acknowledging issues regarding the consistency of several items (“The position of your implants on your chest (too high or too low)”; “How evenly your implants are positioned in relation to each other?”). Factors associated with hospital experience (room comfort, cleanliness, noise level, food service, bathroom comfort, etc.) are confounding factors affecting patient satisfaction with the outcome [43]. Since this study only involved ambulatory surgery, the impact of hospital experience on patient satisfaction can be ruled out. Additional liposuction performed in 69% of patients may account for an overestimation of residual pain, despite a high comfort due to intercostal blocks. However, patients with liposuction did not have significantly more pain than patients without liposuction (rank-sum test; p = 0.788). For optimal sensitivity and consistency, a questionnaire addressing important issues on recovery after aesthetic breast surgery has been developed for this research. The questionnaire is provided in the appendix for critical appraisal of validity or reproducibility. Recall bias can be excluded.
Conclusion Fast Recovery Surgery
Patients and surgeons often expect aesthetic breast surgery to be performed under general anesthesia and have moderate apprehension about sedation, intercostal block, and tumescent anesthesia. The anesthetic techniques described herein are associated with quick recovery and high patient satisfaction. The results help improve patient education about their recovery. Patients, surgeons, and anesthesiologists should be familiar with the risks and advantages of various anesthetic techniques to make the best decision for the patient. The results encourage surgeons and anesthesiologists to closely collaborate to offer alternatives to general anesthesia in aesthetic breast surgery.
References
Young S, Osman BM, Urman RD, Shapiro FE (2021) Patients, procedures, and PPE: safe office-based anesthesia recommendations in the COVID-19 era. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 35(3):415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2020.11.006
Byrd HS, Barton FE, Orenstein HH et al (2003) Safety and efficacy in an accredited outpatient plastic surgery facility: a review of 5316 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(2):636. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000070976.80666.50
Short KK, Ringler SL, Bengtson BP, Hunstad JP, Henry E (1996) Reduction mammaplasty: a safe and effective outpatient procedure. Aesthetic Plast Surg 20(6):513–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00449254
Vendittoli PA, Pellei K, Desmeules F et al (2019) Enhanced recovery short-stay hip and knee joint replacement program improves patients outcomes while reducing hospital costs. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105(7):1237–1243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.08.013
Byun MY, Fine NA, Lee JY, Mustoe TA (1999) The clinical outcome of abdominoplasty performed under conscious sedation: increased use of fentanyl correlated with longer stay in outpatient unit. Plast Reconstr Surg 103(4):1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199904040-00026
Swanson E (2013) Prospective outcome study of 225 cases of breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(5):1158–1166. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318287a0e1
Auer CJ, Glombiewski JA, Doering BK et al (2016) Patients’ expectations predict surgery outcomes: a meta-analysis. Int J Behav Med 23(1):49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-015-9500-4
Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GWJA, Ingels KJAO (2015) Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001264
Weichman KE, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Chen X, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL (2015) Understanding the recovery phase of breast reconstructions: patient-reported outcomes correlated to the type and timing of reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(10):1370–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.05.039
Gehring MB, Lerret S, Johnson J et al (2020) Patient expectations for recovery after elective surgery: a common-sense model approach. J Behav Med 43(2):185–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-019-00097-2
Leventhal H, Weinman J, Leventhal EA, Phillips LA (2008) Health psychology: the search for pathways between behavior and health. Annu Rev Psychol 59:477–505. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093643
Clapham PJ, Pushman AG, Chung KC (2010) A systematic review of applying patient satisfaction outcomes in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(6):1826–1833. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d51276
Stahl S, Santos Stahl A, Feng Y et al (2022) Enhanced recovery after aesthetic breast surgery under intercostal block and tumescent anaesthesia: a prospective cohort study of the early postoperative phase. Aesthet Plast Surg 21:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03214-w
Kang CM, Kim WJ, Yoon SH, Cho CB, Shim JS (2017) Postoperative pain control by intercostal nerve block after augmentation mammoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(5):1031–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0802-6
Klein JA, Jeske DR (2016) Estimated maximal safe dosages of tumescent lidocaine. Anesth Analg 122(5):1350–1359. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001119
Rothaug J, Zaslansky R, Schwenkglenks M et al (2013) Patients’ perception of postoperative pain management: validation of the international pain outcomes (IPO) questionnaire. J Pain 14(11):1361–1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2013.05.016
Organization WHO (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF
Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA (2013) Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology 118(6):1332–1340. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289b84b
Tebbetts J (2002) Achieving a predictable 24 hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: part I. Refining practices by using motion and time study principles. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(1):273–292
McNeely ML, Campbell K, Ospina M et al (2010) Exercise interventions for upper-limb dysfunction due to breast cancer treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6(6):CD005211. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005211.pub2
Basile FV, Oliveira TS (2022) Exercise after breast augmentation: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 149(1):18e–24e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008676
Skues MA (2020) High-risk surgical procedures and semi-emergent surgical procedures for ambulatory surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 33(6):718–723. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000918
Wu Q, Fu N, Chen W et al (2021) Risk factors for patient selection in ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-centre experience. J Minim Access Surg. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_25_21
Chhabra A, Roy Chowdhury A, Prabhakar H et al (2021) Paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation versus general anaesthesia for women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2(2):CD012968. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012968.pub2
Olausson A, Svensson CJ, Andréll P, Jildenstål P, Thörn SE, Wolf A (2022) Total opioid-free general anaesthesia can improve postoperative outcomes after surgery, without evidence of adverse effects on patient safety and pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 66(2):170–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13994
Frenkel C, Schuttler J, Ihmsen H, Heye H, Rommelsheim K (1995) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol/alfentanil infusions for sedation in ICU patients. Intensive Care Med 21(12):981–988
Jenstrup M, Nielsen J, Fruergård K, Møller AM, Wiberg-jørgensen F (1990) Total I.V. anaesthesia with propofol-alfentanil or propofol-fentanyl. Br J Anaesth 64(6):717–722. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/64.6.717
Swanson E (2020) Prospective study of doppler ultrasound surveillance for deep venous thromboses in 1000 plastic surgery outpatients. Plast Reconstr Surg 145:85–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006343
Swanson E (2014) The case against chemoprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism prevention and the rationale for SAFE anesthesia. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2(6):e160. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000116
Shirakami G, Teratani Y, Namba T, Hirakata H, Tazuke-Nishimura M, Fukuda K (2005) Delayed discharge and acceptability of ambulatory surgery in adult outpatients receiving general anesthesia. J Anesth 19(2):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-004-0297-6
Powell R, Scott NW, Manyande A et al (2016) Psychological preparation and postoperative outcomes for adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016(5):CD008646. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008646.pub2
Stepan JG, Sacks HA, Verret CI, Wessel LE, Kumar K, Fufa DT (2021) Standardized perioperative patient education decreases opioid use after hand surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 147(2):409–418. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007574
Sibbern T, Bull Sellevold V, Steindal SA, Dale C, Watt-Watson J, Dihle A (2017) Patients’ experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Clin Nurs 26(9–10):1172–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13456
Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Snell L et al (2012) Measuring and managing patient expectations for breast reconstruction: impact on quality of life and patient satisfaction. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 12(2):149–158. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.105
Irarrázaval MJ, Inzunza M, Muñoz R et al (2021) Telemedicine for postoperative follow-up, virtual surgical clinics during COVID-19 pandemic. Surg Endosc 35(11):6300–6306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08130-1
Hafiji J, Salmon P, Hussain W (2012) Patient satisfaction with post-operative telephone calls after Mohs micrographic surgery: a New Zealand and U.K. experience. Br J Dermatol 167(3):570–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.11011.x
Bartlett BW, Firestone AR, Vig KWL, Beck FM, Marucha PT (2005) The influence of a structured telephone call on orthodontic pain and anxiety. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 128(4):435–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.06.033
Goehner D, Kandregula S, Birk H, Carroll CP, Guthikonda B, Kosty JA (2021) Improving patient care in neurosurgery through postoperative telephone calls: a systematic review and lessons from all surgical specialties. Neurosurg Focus 51(5):E5. https://doi.org/10.3171/2021.8.FOCUS21410
Chin KR, Adams SB, Khoury L, Zurakowski D (2005) Patient behavior if given their surgeon’s cellular telephone number. Clin Orthop Relat Res 439:260–268. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000180607.38604.a4
Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Page GG, Marucha PT, MacCallum RC, Glaser R (1998) Psychological influences on surgical recovery. Perspect psychoneuroimmunol Am Psychol 53(11):1209–1218. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.53.11.1209
Wimalawansa SM, Fox JP, Johnson RM (2014) The measurable cost of complications for outpatient cosmetic surgery in patients with mental health diagnoses. Aesthet Surg J 34(2):306–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X13519100
Evans GRD, Scholz T, Brandt K (2015) Outpatient surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(1):89e–95e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001335
Batbaatar E, Dorjdagva J, Luvsannyam A, Savino MM, Amenta P (2017) Determinants of patient satisfaction: a systematic review. Perspect Publ Health 137(2):89–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913916634136
Dumestre DO, Webb CE, Temple-Oberle C (2017) Improved recovery experience achieved for women undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction using an enhanced recovery after surgery model. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(3):550–559. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003056
Varady NH, Smith EL, Clarkson SJ, Niu R, Freccero DM, Chen AF (2021) Opioid use following inpatient versus outpatient total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103(6):497–505. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.01401
Saperston KN, Shapiro DJ, Hersh AL, Copp HL (2014) A comparison of inpatient versus outpatient resistance patterns of pediatric urinary tract infection. J Urol 191(5 Suppl):1608–1613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.10.064
Green AH, Forlizzi JM, Boyle J et al (2022) Estimating the nosocomial transmission rate of COVID-19 in orthopaedic surgery patients during the peak of the pandemic. Orthop Res Rev 14:215–224. https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S361116
Brüngger B, Bähler C, Schwenkglenks M et al (2021) Surgical procedures in inpatient versus outpatient settings and its potential impact on follow-up costs. Health Policy 125(10):1351–1358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.07.006
Calotta NA, Merola D, Slezak S, Coon D (2020) Outpatient reduction mammaplasty offers significantly lower costs with comparable outcomes: a propensity score-matched analysis of 18,780 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 145(3):499e–506e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006545
Potti A, Panwalkar A, Hebert B, Sholes K, Lewis MJ, Hanley J (2003) Ineffectiveness of measuring routine vital signs in adult inpatients with deep venous thrombosis. Clin appl thromb/hemost 9(2):163–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/107602960300900212
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Approval
The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (Project No. 144/21).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Stahl, S., Santos Stahl, A., Feng, YS. et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Pathways for Aesthetic Breast Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study on Patient-Reported Outcomes. Aesth Plast Surg 48, 84–94 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03392-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03392-1