Assessing the Relationship between Anxiety and Revision Surgery following Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Abstract

Background: Revision procedures address contour irregularities and aesthetic concerns following autologous breast reconstruction. Mental health diagnoses are known to influence patient satisfaction with reconstruction. The authors aimed to identify oncologic, reconstructive, and demographic factors, including mental health diagnoses, associated with the number of revisions after autologous breast reconstruction. Methods: The medical records of all adult women undergoing abdominal free flap–based breast reconstruction at a major academic institution between 2011 and 2016 were reviewed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receipt of revisions. Negative binomial regression was used to identify characteristics associated with number of revisions received. Results: Of 272 patients identified, 55.2 percent received one revision, 23.2 percent received two revisions, and 10.3 percent received three or more revisions after autologous breast reconstruction (median, one; range, zero to five). After adjustment on multivariate analysis, anxiety (OR, 4.34; p = 0.016) and bilateral reconstruction (OR, 3.10; p = 0.017) were associated with receipt of any revisions; other oncologic and reconstructive factors including breast cancer stage, receipt of radiation therapy, and type or timing of free flap reconstruction were not associated with revisions. Using univariate negative binomial regression, anxiety (incidence rate ratio, 1.34; p = 0.006), Caucasian race (incidence rate ratio, 1.24; p = 0.02), and bilateral reconstruction (incidence rate ratio, 1.39; p = 0.04) were predictive of increased numbers of revisions received. After stepwise selection on multivariate analysis, anxiety remained the only significant predictor of increased numbers of revisions. Conclusions: Preoperative anxiety significantly influences the number of revisions after autologous breast reconstruction. Further research is necessary to better understand the interplay among mental health, patient preference, and outcomes in breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Giving meaning to patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction after mastectomy – A systematic review of available scores and suggestions for further research

“…A more clinically relevant presentation of data could also be used in determining if minor cosmetic corrections really have an effect on patient satisfaction. Surgical corrections might be driven by a mixture of the patient's dissatisfaction and anxiety, as well as by the surgeons strive for a perfect result [ 40 ]. Nonetheless, little is known about the real impact of such corrections on long term satisfaction.…”

Safety and Efficacy of Secondary Mandibular Reconstruction Using a Free Osteo-cutaneous Fibula Flap after Segmental Mandibular Resection: A Retrospective Case Control Study

“…However, when it comes to secondary mandibular reconstruction, applying the FFF is still considered to be challenging. Although the potential number of patients who need secondary mandibular reconstructions may be huge, such patients tend to have a history of unfavorable results in previous surgeries and are reluctant to undergo secondary reconstructions due to fear and anxiety [9]. The four patients who underwent secondary mandibular reconstructions at our institution had an average of four surgeries before secondary reconstructions.…”

An ethics analysis of the rationale for publicly funded plastic surgery

“…Women with natural breast asymmetry need to meet rigorous criteria to be operated in the public sector [22,56], whereas women who have had breast cancer are granted a contralateral procedure for symmetrization as a rule [57]. Moreover, in patients considered eligible for plastic surgery in the public healthcare system, corrections and revisions are generously performed upon patient request [58]. Patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) are generally offered rhinoplasty to improve esthetics and 'psychosocial rehabilitation' [59], whereas unattractive noses without underlying malformation are not operated in the public healthcare system [60,61].…”

“…For example, adding extra operating time when the patient is under anesthesia is a resource that cannot be used to operate another patient. The same argument can be used to ration the number of corrections and revisions offered to patients considered eligible for plastic surgery in the public healthcare system [58,76]. For example, a woman receiving one reconstructed breast associated with cancer treatment needs to accept that the natural breast will likely result in breast asymmetry, despite a volume within the 'normal' range [77,78].…”