Purpose Breast cancer continues to be the most prevalent cancer affecting women. Many reconstructive options exist after oncologic resection. Breast reconstruction can have a lasting impact on many areas of the patient's life, and therefore, a high consideration for patient satisfaction is crucial. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide an important tool in the evaluation of different surgical methodologies. The aim of this comprehensive systematic review is to look at various surgical modalities in breast reconstruction as they relate to patient satisfaction. Methods A PubMed PRISMA search was performed. Criteria for inclusion included nipple‐sparing or skin‐sparing mastectomy with autologous or implant‐based reconstruction, level 2 volume displacement or volume replacement oncoplastic surgery, and measurement of patient‐reported outcomes using the BREAST‐Q or other validated PROMs. From the data set, weighted proportions were generated and analyzed using the Kruskal‐Wallis rank sum test and a post hoc Dunn's test. Results After obtaining 254 full text copies, 43 articles met inclusion criteria and were included. Analysis of BREAST‐Q data showed oncoplastic breast surgery was significantly preferred over mastectomy regardless of the type of reconstruction. Nipple‐sparing was significantly preferred over skin‐sparing mastectomy, autologous reconstruction was significantly preferred over implant‐based reconstruction, and prepectoral implant placement was preferred over subpectoral implant placement. Validated PROMs other than BREAST‐Q showed similar trends in all but type of mastectomy. Conclusions In this comprehensive systematic review, oncoplastic surgery showed the most favorable PROMs when compared to other reconstructive modalities. Autologous was preferred over implant‐based reconstruction, and prepectoral was preferred over subpectoral implant placement.
Background Interest in oncoplastic surgery (OPS), a form of breast conservation surgery (BCS), has grown in the United States over the last decade. Oncoplastic surgery allows for the removal of larger tumors without compromising esthetic outcome or oncologic safety. One of the quality measures on which breast cancer centers in the United States are evaluated is rate of BCS. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the adoption of OPS increases BCS rates and decreases mastectomy rates at the institutional level. Methods Clinicopathologic data were retrospectively collected for breast cancer patients in a single institution database. Rates of BCS vs mastectomy and partial mastectomy versus OPS were measured between 2012 and 2018 to capture 3 years before and 3 years after the hiring of an oncoplastic surgeon in 2015 with subsequent practice adoption of oncoplastic techniques. We compared the 2 periods using χ2 and Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Rates of breast conservation and mastectomy were further stratified by tumor stage. Results Four hundred sixty-eight patients underwent breast cancer surgery at Tufts Medical Center between 2012 and 2018. Patients who underwent surgery between 2012–2015 and 2016–2018 were similar in terms of age, histological type, tumor size, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, receptor status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. There was a statistically significant (P < 0.0001) increase in BCS rate after 2015 attributable to the practice adoption of OPS. The proportion of patients who were recommended reexcision did not significantly increase with the introduction of OPS suggesting an appropriate and safe patient selection process for patients undergoing these breast conservation techniques. When stratified by T stage (tumor size), rates of mastectomy for T2 tumors (greater than 2 cm but less than 5 cm) decreased precipitously after 2015 and BCS increased proportionately. The rate of BCS for T1 tumors also increased but less drastically. Conclusions The adoption of OPS in an academic breast cancer center can result in significantly higher rates of BCS, particularly for those with larger tumors (T2). Academic breast cancer centers should strongly consider incorporating OPS to their treatment paradigm to provide patients with the option to avoid mastectomy.
Reconstruction of total facial deformities and defects has been a major challenge of reconstructive surgery. Allotransplantation is limited by the number of donors and the need for life-long immunosuppression. Autotransplantation, where multiple autogenous tissue grafts from various donor sites are used to repair facial defects, inevitably leaves conspicuous patchwork scars. A prefabricated monoblock flap, although the preferred treatment modality, is limited by insufficient blood supply and the large size of the flap. In the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (2014;25:21–25), Li et al applied the technique of flap prefabrication and stem cell–assisted tissue expansion to reconstruct total facial injuries, but the operations were complicated and the final expanded flap area was also uncertain. This article introduces an approach to reconstruct total facial injuries with a prefabricated expanded thoracic flap combined with an expanded scalp flap (called combined flaps), which not only solves the limitations of blood supply and expanded volume but also reduces patchwork scars. The approach is a simple, feasible, and effective surgical method for total face resurfacing.
Background: Many breast-conserving surgical options exist for patients with breast cancer. Surgical choices can have lasting effects on a patient’s life, so patient satisfaction is important to assess. Patient-reported outcome measures provide important tools when evaluating surgical modalities. This systematic review aimed to evaluate how patients describe breast-conserving surgical choices in standard partial mastectomy and oncoplastic surgery options. Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search was performed in PubMed for studies discussing standard partial mastectomy or oncoplastic surgery and measurement of preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q or other validated patient-reported outcome measures. Oncoplastic surgery was categorized as volume displacement or volume replacement. Articles in languages other than English, not involving partial mastectomy or oncoplastic surgery, or not measuring patient-reported outcomes were excluded. Weighted proportions were generated and analyzed with a Welch t test. Results: Of 390 articles, 43 met inclusion criteria, and 8784 patients were included in a pooled database. Although standard partial mastectomy scored well, oncoplastic surgery performed significantly better than partial mastectomy in all postoperative BREAST-Q categories: satisfaction with breasts (74.3 versus 65.7), psychosocial well-being (81.3 versus 78.0), sexual well-being (61.6 versus 54.9), and satisfaction with outcome (85.4 versus 62.2). Level 2 volume displacement surgery had the most favorable scores. Conclusions: Breast-conserving surgical choices that include a variety of oncoplastic surgery and partial mastectomy methods all score well in patient-reported outcome measures, with oncoplastic surgery significantly preferred over partial mastectomy. Oncoplastic surgery should be considered in all cases, and the appropriate breast-conserving surgical choice should depend on the patient’s tumor presentation and anatomy.
Objective: To examine the accuracy of the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) among studies related to mesh use in ventral hernia repair and abdominal wall reconstruction. Summary Background Data: Accurate declaration of COI is integral to ensuring transparency of study results. Multiple studies have demonstrated undeclared COI are prevalent in surgical literature. Methods: Studies with at least 1 American author accepted between 2014 and 2018 in 12 major, peer-reviewed general surgery and plastic surgery journals were included. Declared COI were compared with payments listed in the “Open Payments” database [maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)] during the year of acceptance and 1 year prior. Studies and authors were considered to have a COI if they received payments from any of 8 major mesh companies totaling >$100.00 from each company. Risk factors for undeclared COI were determined at the study and author levels. Results: One hundred twenty-six studies (553 authors) were included. One hundred two studies (81.0%) had one or more authors who received payments from industry and inaccurately declared their COI. Two hundred forty-eight authors (44.8%) did not declare their COI accurately. On multivariate analysis, last authors were found to be at highest risk for undeclared payments (OR 3.59, 95%CI 2.02–6.20), whereas middle authors were at significantly higher risk for undeclared payments than first authors (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.04-2.56). Conclusions: The majority of studies investigating the use of mesh in ventral hernia repairs and abdominal wall reconstructions did not accurately declare COI. Last authors are at highest risk of undisclosed payments. Current policies on disclosing COI seem to be insufficient to ensure transparency of publications.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.