Outcome of Quality of Life for Women Undergoing Autologous versus Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Breast
/ surgery
Breast Implants
/ adverse effects
Breast Neoplasms
/ surgery
Female
Humans
Mammaplasty
/ adverse effects
Mastectomy
/ adverse effects
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient Satisfaction
Quality of Life
Surgical Flaps
/ adverse effects
Transplantation, Autologous
/ adverse effects
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
entrez:
26
4
2020
pubmed:
26
4
2020
medline:
23
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This review aimed to meta-analyze the quality of life of alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction, when measured with the BREAST-Q. An electronic PubMed and EMBASE search was designed to find articles that compared alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Studies that failed to present BREAST-Q scores and studies that did not compare alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction were excluded. Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. A standardized data collection form was used. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The mean difference and 95 percent confidence intervals between breast reconstruction means were estimated for each BREAST-Q subscale. Forest plots and the I statistic were used to assess heterogeneity and funnel plot publication bias. The Z test was used to assess overall effects. Two hundred eighty abstracts were found; 10 articles were included. Autologous breast reconstruction scored significantly higher in the five subscales than alloplastic breast reconstruction. The Satisfaction with Breasts subscale indicated the greatest difference, with a mean difference of 6.41 (95 percent CI, 3.58 to 9.24; I = 70 percent). The Satisfaction with Results subscale displayed a mean difference of 5.52. The Sexual Well-Being subscale displayed a mean difference of 3.85. The Psychosocial Well-Being subscale displayed a mean difference of 2.64. The overall difference in physical well-being was significant, with high heterogeneity (mean difference, 3.33; 95 percent CI, 0.18 to 6.48; I = 85). Autologous breast reconstruction had superior outcomes compared with alloplastic breast reconstruction as measured by the BREAST-Q.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This review aimed to meta-analyze the quality of life of alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction, when measured with the BREAST-Q.
METHODS
An electronic PubMed and EMBASE search was designed to find articles that compared alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Studies that failed to present BREAST-Q scores and studies that did not compare alloplastic versus autologous breast reconstruction were excluded. Two authors independently extracted data from the included studies. A standardized data collection form was used. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The mean difference and 95 percent confidence intervals between breast reconstruction means were estimated for each BREAST-Q subscale. Forest plots and the I statistic were used to assess heterogeneity and funnel plot publication bias. The Z test was used to assess overall effects.
RESULTS
Two hundred eighty abstracts were found; 10 articles were included. Autologous breast reconstruction scored significantly higher in the five subscales than alloplastic breast reconstruction. The Satisfaction with Breasts subscale indicated the greatest difference, with a mean difference of 6.41 (95 percent CI, 3.58 to 9.24; I = 70 percent). The Satisfaction with Results subscale displayed a mean difference of 5.52. The Sexual Well-Being subscale displayed a mean difference of 3.85. The Psychosocial Well-Being subscale displayed a mean difference of 2.64. The overall difference in physical well-being was significant, with high heterogeneity (mean difference, 3.33; 95 percent CI, 0.18 to 6.48; I = 85).
CONCLUSION
Autologous breast reconstruction had superior outcomes compared with alloplastic breast reconstruction as measured by the BREAST-Q.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32332522
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006720
pii: 00006534-202005000-00001
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1109-1123Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.
De Vries J, van der Graaf WTA, Hollema H, Szabó BG, Bender W, Haagedoorn WML. de Vries J. Mammacarcinoom. In: Oncologie voor de algemene praktijk. 2009:Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum; 121–132.
Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1633–1637.
Fobair P, Stewart SL, Chang S, D’Onofrio C, Banks PJ, Bloom JR. Body image and sexual problems in young women with breast cancer. Psychooncology 2006;15:579–594.
Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simple mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:1938–1943.
Shea-Budgell M, Quan ML, Mehling B, Temple-Oberle C. Breast reconstruction following prophylactic or therapeutic mastectomy for breast cancer: Recommendations from an evidence-based provincial guideline. Plast Surg (Oakv.) 2014;22:103–111.
Eltahir Y, Werners LL, Dreise MM, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes between mastectomy alone and breast reconstruction: Comparison of patient-reported BREAST-Q and other health-related quality-of-life measures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:201e–209e.
Guyomard V, Leinster S, Wilkinson M. Systematic review of studies of patients’ satisfaction with breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast 2007;16:547–567.
Winters ZE, Benson JR, Pusic AL. A systematic review of the clinical evidence to guide treatment recommendations in breast reconstruction based on patient- reported outcome measures and health-related quality of life. Ann Surg. 2010;252:929–942.
Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–353.
Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Scott A, Klok J, Cano SJ. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: A qualitative study. BMC Womens Health 2009;9:11.
Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Pusic AL. A closer look at the BREAST-Q. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40:287–296.
Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN, et al. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: A review of the literature 2009-2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:149–162.
Hamdi M, De Frene B. Pedicled perforator flaps in breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2006;20:73–78.
Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Effect of patient age on outcomes in breast reconstruction: Results from a multicenter prospective study. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223:745–754.
Dean NR, Crittenden T. A five year experience of measuring clinical effectiveness in a breast reconstruction service using the BREAST-Q patient reported outcomes measure: A cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1469–1477.
Johnson DB, Lapin B, Wang C, et al. Advanced age does not worsen recovery or long-term morbidity after postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:164–169.
Alamouti R, Hachach-Haram N, Farhadi J. Multidisciplinary management of risk-reducing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction: Treatment algorithm and patient satisfaction. Eur J Plast Surg. 2015;38:385–390.
Kazzazi F, Haggie R, Forouhi P, Kazzazi N, Wyld L, Malata CM. A comparison of patient satisfaction (using the BREAST-Q questionnaire) with bilateral breast reconstruction following risk-reducing or therapeutic mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:1324–1331.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6: Rating the quality of evidence. Imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1283–1293.
Eltahir Y, Werners LL, Dreise MM, Zeijlmans van Emmichoven IA, Werker PM, de Bock GH. Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:43–50.
Devulapalli D, Bello RJ, Moin E, et al. The effect of radiation on quality of life throughout the breast reconstruction process: A prospective, longitudinal pilot study of 200 patients with long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:579–589.
Lagendijk M, van Egdom LSE, Richel C, et al. Patient reported outcome measures in breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:963–968.
McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Long T, et al. Chest and upper body morbidity following immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:107–112.
Weichman KE, Broer PN, Thanik VD, et al. Patient-reported satisfaction and quality of life following breast reconstruction in thin patients: A comparison between microsurgical and prosthetic implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:213–220.
Kuykendall LV, Zhang A, Tugertimur B, et al. Outcomes in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and implant-based reconstruction: Does age really matter? Cancer Control 2018;25:1073274817744603.
Fracon S, Renzi N, Manara M, Ramella V, Papa G, Arnež ZM. Patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction: Implants vs. autologous tissues. Acta Chir Plast. 2018;59:120–128.
Gómez-Escolar Larrañaga L, Delgado Martínez J, Miguelena Bobadilla JM. Comparison among the levels of patients’ satisfaction according to the surgical technique used in breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Cir Esp. 2017;95:594–600.
Alderman AK, Kuhn LE, Lowery JC, Wilkins EG. Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:7–12.
Wilkins EG, Hamill JB, Kim HM, et al. Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: One-year outcomes of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium (MROC) study. Ann Surg. 2018;267:164–170.
Lagares-Borrego A, Gacto-Sanchez P, Infante-Cossio P, Barrera-Pulido F, Sicilia-Castro D, Gomez-Cia T. A comparison of long-term cost and clinical outcomes between the two-stage sequence expander/prosthesis and autologous deep inferior epigastric flap methods for breast reconstruction in a public hospital. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:196–205.
Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. Breast cancer and reconstruction: Normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1046e–1055e.
Somogyi RB, Ziolkowski N, Fahima O, et al. Breast reconstruction: Updated overview for primary care physicians. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:424–432.
Cororve Fingeret M, Nipomnick S, Crosby MA, et al. Developing a theoretical framework to illustrate associations among patient satisfaction, body image and quality of life for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:673–681.
Nayir T, Uskun E, Yürekli MV, Devran H, Çelik A, Okyay RA. Does body image affect quality of life? A population based study. PLoS One 2016;11:e0163290.