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.
BACKGROUND: Lymph node transfer (LNT) and lymphovenous bypass (LVB) have been described as 2 major surgical options for patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) who have failed conservative therapy. The objective of our study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LNT and LVB for the treatment of BCRL. STUDY DESIGN: Rates of infection, lymph leak, and failure of LNT and LVB were obtained from a previously published meta-analysis. Failure of surgery was defined as the inability to cease compression therapy postoperatively. Procedural costs were calculated from Medicare reimbursement rates. Cost of conservative management of postoperative surgical site infection, lymph leak, and continued decongestive physiotherapy after failed surgery were obtained from literature review. Average utility scores for each health state were calculated using a visual analog scale survey, then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A decision tree was constructed, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was assessed at $50,000/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: LNT was less costly ($22,492 vs $31,927) and more effective (31.82 QALY vs 29.24 QALY) than LVB. One-way (deterministic) sensitivity analysis demonstrated that LNT became cost-ineffective when its failure rate was more than 43.8%. LVB became more cost-effective than LNT when its failure rate was less than 21.4%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation indicated that even with uncertainty present in the variables analyzed, the majority of simulations (97%) favored LNT as the more cost-effective strategy. Conclusions: LNT is a dominant, cost-effective strategy compared to LVB for the treatment of BCRL.
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.
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.