4.7 Article

Immediate Breast Reconstruction Does Not Increase Postmastectomy Pain

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 113-117

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3293-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Appeal
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NIHR-CS-011-014] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a recognized complication of breast surgery, with a reported prevalence of 20-52 %. We investigated whether patients having immediate reconstruction (IR) reported more long-term pain compared to those having mastectomy alone (MA). We also investigated treatment factors influencing PMPS. Methods. In a single center, all patients who underwent MA or IR between January 2009 and June 2011 and attended for follow-up between February 2012 and July 2012 were identified. Patients were invited to complete two questionnaires, a pain intensity visual analog scale (VAS, scored 0 to 10) and the PainDetect screening tool for neuropathic pain. Results. Of 318 patients due to attend, 272 (86 %) submitted complete questionnaires. Of these, 134 (49 %) women had IR (implant based n = 93, pedicled flaps n = 33, free flaps n = 8). The overall point prevalence pain was low, with 221 (81 %) reporting VAS current pain as zero. Only 8 (3 %) patients reported a VAS score above 4. Six (2 %) patients had a positive PainDetect score. The percentage of patients reporting VAS scores greater than zero and positive or borderline PainDetect scores was similar for MA and IR (VAS: 13 and 14 %, respectively; PainDetect: 6 and 11 %, respectively). Radiotherapy was the strongest predictor of neuropathic pain. Conclusions. In this cohort, the prevalence of PMPS was lower than historic reports. We find no evidence of increased overall pain intensity or chronic neuropathic pain after IR compared to MA despite additional tissue dissection and potential donor site morbidity. This adds support to the positive benefits of breast reconstruction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据