4.5 Article

Patient satisfaction with nipple-sparing mastectomy: A prospective study of patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 114, Issue 4, Pages 416-422

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.24364

Keywords

nipple-sparing mastectomy; mastectomy; BREAST-Q; outcomes; satisfaction

Funding

  1. NorthShore University Health System Auxiliary Board

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and ObjectivesThe authors sought to study patient-reported outcomes following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). MethodsFrom 2008 to 2011, the BREAST-Q was administered to women undergoing NSM surgery for cancer treatment or risk-reduction prior to surgery and at 2 years after completion of reconstruction. The change in score over time and the impact of surgical indication, complication occurrence, and laterality on scores were analyzed. ResultsThe BREAST-Q was prospectively administered to 39 women undergoing NSM for cancer treatment (n=17) or risk-reduction (RR) (n=22). At 2 years after operation, median overall satisfaction with breasts was 75 (IQR=67,100). There were significant postoperative increases in scores for overall satisfaction with breasts (+8, P=0.021) and psychosocial well-being (+14, P=0.003). Postoperatively, RR patients had significantly higher scores for psychosocial wellness, physical impact (chest), and overall satisfaction with outcome compared to cancer treatment patients (P<0.05). Also, increase from preoperative to postoperative psychosocial wellness was higher in the RR compared to cancer treatment patients (+17 vs. +1, P=0.043). Complication occurrence did not significantly impact postoperative scores. ConclusionsFollowing NSM for cancer treatment or RR, patients demonstrated high levels of satisfaction and quality of life as measured by BREAST-Q. Satisfaction level increased 2 years following operation. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:416-422. (c) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available