Skip to main content

Satisfaction of Patients Who Received Breast-Conserving Surgery Using the Suture Scaffold Technique: A Single-Institution, Cross-Sectional Study



Optimal cosmetic results after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) improve patient satisfaction. The suture scaffold technique (SST) is a breast reconstruction technique that all breast surgeons can perform without any extensive training in plastic surgery.


We aimed to investigate patient satisfaction after BCS and compare blood loss and operative duration between the SST, breast glandular flap technique (BGFT), and no oncoplastic technique (NOT).


This was a prospective, single-center, cross-sectional study. All patients who underwent BCS from August 2017 to September 2019 in our institution were included, with the exception of those with cT3 tumors or those who underwent nipple excision or bilateral breast surgery. The BREAST-Q™ was used to survey the patients, and the raw sum scale scores of the BREAST-Q™ were converted into BREAST-Q scores.


Overall, we identified 421 eligible patients. The NOT was used in 47 (11.1%) patients, the BGFT was used in 231 (54.8%) patients, and the SST was used in 143 (33.9%) patients. In the univariable model, the BGFT and the SST had higher BREAST-Q scores than the NOT, while in the multivariable model, the SST had significantly higher BREAST-Q scores than the NOT (ß = +7.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9–13.7; p = 0.01). Blood loss was significantly less with the SST compared with the BGFT (ß = −4.4, 95% CI −7.3 to −1.4), and there was no difference in operative duration between the methods.


Patient satisfaction with the SST was higher than with the NOT and was similar to the BGFT. The SST is an oncoplastic technique that all breast surgeons can perform and which requires comparable blood loss and operative duration in the NOT.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Data availability

Due to the nature of this research, participants in this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, therefore supporting data are not available.


  1. World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. The Global Cancer Observatory. 2018 statistics. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.

  2. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1998–2005.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. EBCTCG (Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group), McGale P, Taylor C, et al. Effect of radiotherapy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in 22 randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383:2127–35.

  4. Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB, et al. Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86:628–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Foersterling E, Golatta M, Hennigs A, et al. Predictors of early poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery in patients with breast cancer: Initial results of a prospective cohort study at a single institution. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:801–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hennigs A, Hartmann B, Rauch G, et al. Long-term objective esthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153:345–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Macadam SA, Ho AL, Lennox PA, et al. Patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: a comparison of shaped cohesive gel and round cohesive gel implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:431–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Heil J, Czink E, Golatta M, et al. Change of aesthetic and functional outcome over time and their relationship to quality of life after breast conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:116–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Metcalfe KA, Zhong T, Narod SA, et al. A prospective study of mastectomy patients with and without delayed breast reconstruction: Long-term psychosocial functioning in the breast cancer survivorship period. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:258–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Losken A, Hart AM, Chatterjee A. Updated evidence on the oncoplastic approach to breast conservation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:14S-22S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gainer SM, Lee E, Lucci A. The suture scaffold technique for improved cosmesis in partial mastectomy defects. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102:184–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kelemen P, Pukancsik D, Újhelyi M, et al. Comparison of clinicopathologic, cosmetic and quality of life outcomes in 700 oncoplastic and conventional breast-conserving surgery cases: a single-centre retrospective study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:118–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, et al. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1375–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:293–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kalbhen CL, McGill JJ, Fendley PM, Corrigan KW, Angelats J. Mammographic determination of breast volume: comparing different methods. AJR. 1999;173:1643–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson ARM, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1505–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Carmen L, Yen YT, Christian S. Patient satisfaction after breast cancer surgery: a prospective clinical trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2021;133:6–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cary SK, Michael JC, Julie LB, et al. A three-dimensional bioabsorbable tissue marker for volume replacement and radiation planning: a multicenter study of surgical and patient-reported outcomes for 818 patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:2529–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lisa W, Matthew B, Donna E, et al. Biological and synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction procedures: joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47:2807–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoffmann J, Wallwiener D. Classifying breast cancer surgery: a novel, complexity-based system for oncological, oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures, and proof of principle by analysis of 1225 operations in 1166 patients. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fujishiro S, Mitsumori M, Kokubo M, et al. Cosmetic results and complications after breast conserving therapy for early breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2000;7:57–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Immink JM, Putter H, Bartelink H, et al. Long-term cosmetic changes after breast-conserving treatment of patients with stage I-II breast cancer and included in the EORTC ‘boost versus no boost’ trial. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:2591–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


Grammatical assistance was provided by professional editors at Editage, a division of Cactus Communications (


No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasuaki Sagara MD, MPH.

Ethics declarations


Reiko Mitsueda, Anri Gen, Yoshitaka Fujiki, Naomi Gondo, Mutsumi Sato, Junko Kawano, Koichi Kuninaka, Shuichi Kanemitsu, Megumi Teraoka, Yoshito Matsuyama, Shinichi Baba, Sugako Nomoto, Robert Sloan, Yoshiaki Rai, Yoshiaki Sagara, and Yasuaki Sagara have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical declarations

Approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee at Sagara Hospital in December 2019. Informed consent was obtained from 495 patients for their participation in the survey.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mitsueda, R., Gen, A., Fujiki, Y. et al. Satisfaction of Patients Who Received Breast-Conserving Surgery Using the Suture Scaffold Technique: A Single-Institution, Cross-Sectional Study. Ann Surg Oncol 29, 3829–3835 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: