Good health-related quality-of-life and high patient-reported satisfaction after delayed breast reconstruction with pedicled flaps from the back

Comparison of Outcomes after Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Latissimus Dorsi with Immediate Fat Transfer versus Abdominally Based Free Flaps

BACKGROUND

Autologous breast reconstruction confers favorable patient reports of satisfaction and quality of life compared with implant-based reconstruction over a lifetime. The latissimus dorsi with immediate fat transfer (LIFT) is an alternative approach to abdominally based free flaps (Ab-FF), which expands fully autologous reconstruction to nonmicrosurgeons. This study compared the 2 procedures concerning their clinical and patient-reported outcomes 1 year postoperatively.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of LIFTs and Ab-FFs performed between March of 2017 and August of 2022. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, reoperations, and longitudinal BREAST-Q scores. BREAST-Q modules included Satisfaction with Breasts, Satisfaction with Abdomen, Satisfaction with Back, Psychosocial Well-being, Physical Well-being: Chest, Physical Well-being: Abdomen, Physical Well-being: Back, and Sexual Well-being.

RESULTS

Of the 281 included patients (408 breasts), 211 received Ab-FF and 70 received LIFT. One-year follow-up (median [interquartile range], 12 [12] months) demonstrated that Ab-FF independently predicted dehiscence, reoperation procedures, and revisional surgery. LIFT independently increased the odds of seroma. Obesity predicted dehiscence, and bilateral reconstructions predicted revisional fat grafting. BREAST-Q scores fluctuated over time but were similar across all measured domains by 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Ab-FF is the standard approach for fully autologous reconstruction, LIFT procedures may be associated with a less complicated postoperative course while eliciting similar patient-reported outcomes. LIFT may be preferred to limit postoperative complications, particularly in patients with obesity. LIFT can be used by plastic surgeons who are not trained in microsurgical procedures or do not have an environment that fosters Ab-FF.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

[Unilateral secondary breast reconstruction using a pedicled dorsal flap sparing the latissimus dorsi (TDAP and MSLD) in patients with a history of total mastectomy for breast cancer. Monocentric observational study]

INTRODUCTION

The use of pedicled dorsal flaps sparing the latissimus dorsi muscle (TDAP and MSLD flap) is a well-described reconstruction method in breast reconstruction after breast cancer. However, little data exists regarding patient satisfaction after this surgery. The main objective of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction after unilateral total secondary breast reconstruction using a TDAP or MSLD flap. The secondary objectives corresponded to the evaluation of postoperative complications following this surgery, the evaluation of the duration of the reconstruction and the nature of additional interventions, the evaluation of the functional after-effects, and the evaluation of the chest size when the reconstruction is completed.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This is a monocentric, retrospective cohort study, including 22 patients who underwent unilateral secondary total breast reconstruction using a TDAP or MSLD flap between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2022. Patient satisfaction was assessed using three questionnaires validated in breast reconstruction: the Reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q, the MBROS-S and the MBROS-BI.

RESULTS

The MBROS-S satisfaction score is 71.4%. The MBROS-BI body image score is 62%. With the BREAST-Q, the Satisfaction with Breast score is estimated at 53.1; the Satisfaction with Back score is estimated at 75.5; the physical well-being score regarding the chest is evaluated at 71.7; the physical well-being score concerning the shoulder and back is evaluated at 67.4; the psychosocial well-being score is assessed at 67.4; the sexual well-being score is estimated at 48.7; and for women who have benefited from reconstruction associated with a prosthesis, the satisfaction score regarding the implant is 71.6.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral total secondary breast reconstruction with a dorsal pedicled flap sparing the latissimus dorsi muscle is an elegant, reliable, and respectful way to reconstruct a breast, and appears to give high levels of satisfaction.

Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review is to update and synthesize new evidence on BREAST-Q questionnaire’s ability to reflect patient-reported outcomes in women who have undergone breast reconstruction surgery (BRS) following mastectomy.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clincaltrial.gov were searched for relevant studies from January 2009 to September 2021. Any interventional or observational studies that used BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes in the assessment of BRS following mastectomy were included.

Results

A total of 42 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Three were randomized controlled trials and 39 were observational studies. Compared with pre-operative scores, there was an improvement in all BREAST-Q outcome domains following BRS including ‘satisfaction with breasts’, “satisfaction with outcome” “psychosocial”, “physical”, and “sexual wellbeing”. Sexual well-being had the lowest BREAST-Q score both pre-and post-operatively (37.8–80.0 and 39.0–78.0, respectively). Autologous BRS reports higher satisfaction and overall wellbeing compared to implant-based BRS. BREAST-Q has a higher and narrow internal consistency of 0.81 to 0.96 compared with other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; EORTC-QLQ, FACT-B, BR-23, BCTOS). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is the only PROM which allows patients to reflect on their care, surgical outcomes, and satisfaction collectively.

Conclusion

This review highlights the fact that BREAST-Q can effectively and reliably measure satisfaction and wellbeing of breast cancer patients after BRS. Comparatively, sexual wellbeing shows poorer outcomes following BRS and more longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the basis for these findings. Compared to other PROMs, BREAST-Q is reliable and specific to breast cancer surgery. Overall, BREAST-Q can help clinicians improve their quality of service, understand patient experiences, and may be used as an auditing tool for surgical outcomes.