| Abstrakt: |
Background: The literature that has explored differences between direct-to-implant (DTI) and expander-based (EB) breast reconstruction has mainly focused on complications, with results not always unambiguous. Moreover, there are limited data 1) comparing DTI and EB breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and 2) from the patient's perspective. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare satisfaction and well-being in patients undergoing DTI and EB reconstruction after NSM in a Comprehensive Cancer Center, exploring what factors can be related to satisfaction and well-being. Method: The study design is monocentric, observational and retrospective. The participants completed an online questionnaire containing the Breast-Q and some socio-demographic variables (year of birth, level of education, civil status). Clinical information was obtained from the institutional database. Surgical techniques in the two branches of NSM were similar: all skin incisions, lateral to the areola; all implants, subpectoral (EB: conventionally submuscular; DTI: dual-plane pocket); all without synthetic mesh or acellular tissue matrix. Results: A total of 120 patients (45% with EB and 55% with DTI) completed the questionnaire. We found that there are no differences between EB and DTI concerning the satisfaction and well-being of NSM patients, except for satisfaction with information, which is greater in the DTI group. In EB patients, no variables among those explored are related to satisfaction and well-being. In DTI patients, level of education is positive related to satisfaction with implants and physical well-being, Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) and body mass index (BMI) are negative related to satisfaction with information and TNM also with satisfaction for plastic surgery. Conclusion: EB and DTI do not differ in terms of patient well-being, but EB requires a more careful counselling by the surgeon. Level of evidence III: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Full text from SpringerLink