IntroductionEnhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been proven to decrease the length of hospital stay without increasing re-admission rates or complications. There are limited data on the satisfaction of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic malignancy within ERAS programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction after minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic malignancy within the ERAS program using the 'Evaluation du Vécu de l’Anésthésie Génerale (EVAN-G)' questionnaire.MethodsThis observational retrospective study was conducted at the Paoli-Calmettes Institute between June 2016 and December 2018. All the included patients underwent minimally invasive surgery for a gynecologic malignancy. EVAN-G, a validated questionnaire, was used to measure peri-operative patient satisfaction. This questionnaire consists of 26 items assessing six elements: attention, privacy, information, pain, discomfort, and waiting time. Each element is assessed via a 5-step numerical scale and then transformed to a 0–100 scale according to the degree of satisfaction. The EVAN-G questionnaire was given to patients before surgery and collected during the post-operative consultation (2–3 weeks after surgery).ResultsA total of 175 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic malignancy within the ERAS program. Of these, 92 patients were included in the study and 83 patients were excluded. The overall patient compliance rate with our ERAS program was 90%. The analysis of the EVAN-G score of all participants showed an overall high level of satisfaction with a mean score of 81.9 (range 41.6–100). Patients with peri-operative complications or having prolonged hospitalization also showed high levels of satisfaction with a mean score of 80.5 (41.6-100) and 83.2(55-100), respectively.ConclusionIn this study we showed a high patient satisfaction with the ERAS program. When comparing length of stay and complications, neither extended length of stay nor development of complications after minimally invasive surgery impacted patient satisfaction.
Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) rates increase during last years and implant-based reconstruction was the most commonly performed procedure. We examined data collected over 25 months to assess complication rate, duration of surgery, patient’s satisfaction and cost, according to pre-pectoral or sub-pectoral implant-IBR.
All patients who received an implant-IBR, from January 2020 to January 2022, were included. Results were compared between pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral implant-IBR in univariate and multivariate analysis.
We performed 316 implant-IBR, 218 sub-pectoral and 98 (31%) pre-pectoral. Pre-pectoral implant-IBR was significantly associated with the year (2021: OR=12.08 and 2022: OR=76.6), the surgeons and type of mastectomy (SSM vs NSM: OR=0.377).
Complications and complications Grade 2–3 rates were 12.9% and 10.1% for sub-pectoral implant-IBR respectively, without significant difference with pre-pectoral implant-IBR: 17.3% and 13.2%. Complications Grade 2–3 were significantly associated with age <50-years (OR=2.27), ASA-2 status (OR=3.63) and cup-size >C (OR=3.08), without difference between pre and sub-pectoral implant-IBR. Durations of surgery were significantly associated with cup-size C and >C (OR=1.72 and 2.80), with sentinel lymph-node biopsy and axillary dissection (OR=3.66 and 9.59) and with sub-pectoral implant-IBR (OR=2.088). Median hospitalization stay was 1 day, without difference between pre and sub-pectoral implant-IBR. Cost of surgery was significantly associated with cup-size > C (OR=2.216) and pre-pectoral implant-IBR (OR=8.02). Bad-medium satisfaction and IBR-failure were significantly associated with local recurrence (OR=8.820), post-mastectomy radiotherapy (OR=1.904) and sub-pectoral implant-IBR (OR=2.098).
Conclusion:
Complications were not different between pre and sub-pectoral implant-IBR. Pre-pectoral implant-IBR seems a reliable and faster technique with better patient satisfaction but with higher cost.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.