To use indwelling drainage or not in dual-plane breast augmentation mammoplasty patients: A comparative study

High Quality of Care Delivery Improves Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life Outcomes After Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is one of the most common aesthetic procedures worldwide. Most studies have focused on evaluating the outcome with validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and factors that may influence them. However, the influence of care delivery, which can be measured with patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), is rarely considered in studies of breast augmentation patients.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we aimed to evaluate the associations between PREMs and PROMs in patients who underwent breast augmentation.

METHODS

A multicenter cohort study was conducted in breast augmentation patients. Patients completed PREMs, including items such as communication between physician and patient, expectation management, welcome, and hygiene, and the BREAST-Q PROM (satisfaction with breasts and psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being) preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations between PREMs and PROMs.

RESULTS

Overall, 329 patients were included between 2018 and 2022. Univariate regression analysis showed a positive association between PREM and PROM scales. The feeling of being heard (B = -38.39 and B = -18.90), the opportunity to ask questions (B = -9.21), and trust in their physician (B = -39.08) had the highest association with change in the 4 BREAST-Q scales. The multivariable regression analysis showed that the variance in PROMs related to changes in PREMs (19%) was little influenced by patient characteristics (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient outcomes are more positive after breast augmentation when patients feel they are being heard, have the opportunity to ask questions, and have trust in their physician. Future studies should be targeted at optimizing patient-reported experience to investigate whether this improves patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Breast Augmentation: A Follow-Up of 6 Months

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the success of a breast augmentation, it is essential to measure outcomes from the patient perspective, because a successful aesthetic result is, in particular, determined by the patient. This study aimed to evaluate patient-reported satisfaction with their breasts, and psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being in patients undergoing breast augmentation using validated questionnaires.

METHODS

This is a multicenter cohort study based on ongoing routinely collected data. Patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life were assessed with the BREAST-Q augmentation module at intake and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 1405 patients were included. Large changes in BREAST-Q scores (range, 0 to 100) between intake and 6 months postoperatively were seen in satisfaction with breasts (mean, effect size: +57, 3.8), psychosocial well-being (mean, effect size: +38, 2.1), physical well-being (mean, effect size: -14, -1.2), and sexual well-being (mean, effect size: +44, 2.4). Moreover, improvements in all four scales were not dependent on their intake scores, and all postoperative scores reached similar levels. A decreased physical well-being of the chest was measured after surgery. The satisfaction with breasts scale correlated moderately to strongly with the psychosocial and sexual well-being scale 6 months after surgery. Subgroup analysis based on patient characteristics found no differences in outcomes, except for body mass index.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvement in patient-reported satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being can be seen 6 months after breast augmentation, despite a decline in physical well-being after treatment. Postoperative satisfaction levels did not depend on preoperative scores. These insights can contribute to improving preoperative communication between surgeon and patient regarding the expected outcomes.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Quality of life and satisfaction after breast augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation ranks among the most popular plastic surgery procedures. Yet, reports on post-operative patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction remain conflicting.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Three databases were searched for eligible studies that reported pre-and/or post-operative Breast-Q™ augmentation scores for patient QoL (psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being) and/or satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies (53 patient cohorts and 18,322 patients) were included in the quantitative synthesis. The pairwise meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in patient-reported psychosocial (MD: +38.10) and sexual well-being (MD: +40.20) as well as satisfaction with breast (MD: +47.88) (all p < 0.00001). Physical well-being improved slightly after breast augmentation (MD: +6.97; p = 0.42). The single-arm meta-analysis yielded comparable results, with Breast-Q™ scores in psychosocial and sexual well-being as well as satisfaction with breast increasing from 37.2, 31.1, and 26.3 to 75.0, 70.6, and 72.7, respectively (all p < 0.00001). Physical well-being improved by 8.1 (75.8 pre-operatively to 83.9 post-operatively; p = 0.17). Subgroup analyses highlighted higher QoL and satisfaction following breast augmentation for purely esthetic purposes and alloplastic mammaplasty. Although patient-reported physical and sexual well-being increased in the long term, psychosocial well-being was the highest in the short term.

CONCLUSION

Patient satisfaction with breast, psychosocial, and sexual well-being increased significantly after breast augmentation. In contrast, patient-reported physical well-being yielded ambivalent results, varying by mammaplasty technique and post-operative follow-up time. Plastic surgeons should be sensitized about our findings to refine eligibility criteria and gain a deeper understanding of the patients' perceived surgical experience.

PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NO

CRD42023409605.

Augmentation-Mastopexy: Analysis of 95 Consecutive Patients and Critical Appraisal of the Procedure

Single-stage mastopexy-augmentation has been demonstrated to be a safe procedure. However, revisions may still be necessary. We evaluate 95 consecutive patients undergoing mastopexy-augmentation and introduce a new surgical technique for the procedure: the modified dual plane technique. In this retrospective study, 95 patients (mean age 34 ± 11 years) underwent mastopexy-augmentation between 2009 and 2019. The procedures were classified as subglandular, dual plane, or modified dual plane technique. The outcome measures included major and minor complications. A total of 19 patients underwent a subglandular procedure, 32 patients a dual plane procedure, and 44 patients a modified dual plane procedure. We observed a high overall complication rate in the subglandular group (n = 12, 63%), dual plane group (n = 15, 47%), and modified dual plane group (n = 10, 23%). Complications leading to implant loss/change occurred in seven patients in the subglandular group (37%), six patients in the dual plane group (19%), and no patient in the modified dual plane group. While we observed a high complication rate in patients undergoing mastopexy-augmentations, the modified dual plane technique was associated with a lower complication rate.

Does drainage affect development of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of drainage on heterotopic ossification (HO) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to evaluate other postoperative complications and joint dysfunction between patients with and without drainage.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, the medical records of patients who underwent THA from 2017 to 2019 were reviewed. The patients were divided into a drainage group and non-drainage group. Standard preoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were assessed by senior radiologists for HO analysis. Clinical indicators included the hemoglobin concentration, superficial infection, blood transfusion, hematoma formation, hip range of motion (ROM), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein concentration, dressing changes, visual analogue scale score, and Harris Hip Score (HHS).

RESULTS

The incidence of HO was significantly higher in the drainage than non-drainage group (32.0% vs. 16.3%). The presence of severe HO (Brooker grade III or IV) was also different between the groups. Patients in the non-drainage group had smaller ROM early after surgery, but the final ROM and HHS did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate and degree of HO after THA were significantly different between patients with and without drainage. There is no added advantage of closed suction drainage over no drainage in primary THA.

A Shakespearean Dilemma in Breast Augmentation: to Use Drains or not? a Systematic Review : Drains in Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly requested and performed plastic surgery procedures. In order to prevent early postoperative complications such as seroma or hematoma, surgical drains could be useful. The aim is to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of surgical drains in primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

This review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were queried in search of clinical studies describing the use of surgical drains in women undergoing primary breast augmentation with implants and documenting seroma and/or hematoma formation rate and/or infection rate.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 2596 studies, and 162 were found relevant. Full-text review and application of our inclusion criteria to all retrieved papers produced 38 articles that met inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 16 papers reported the use of surgical drains in breast augmentation, while in the remaining 22 articles drains were not used. Only 5 studies specifically investigated the role and effectiveness of surgical drains in augmentation mammaplasty and its possible relationship with complication rate such as seroma, hematoma or infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar complication rates emerged from the analyzed articles, because of the heterogeneity of the studies, we were not able to demonstrate specifically whether drain use affects the rate of early postoperative complications such as seroma, hematoma and infection. Additional randomized controlled trials are strongly advocated in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .