A Novel Validated Breast Aesthetic Scale.
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:
01 06 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
30
3
2022
medline:
28
5
2022
entrez:
29
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Breast aesthetics impacts patients' quality of life after breast reconstruction, but patients and surgeons frequently disagree on the final aesthetic evaluation. The need for a comprehensive, validated tool to evaluate breast aesthetics independently from the patient motivated this study. The 13-item Validated Breast Aesthetic Scale was developed after several internal meetings, and worded to be understood by a nonspecialist. Three items are common for both breasts, with the remaining being side-specific. To test the internal consistency of the scale subitems, postoperative photographs after different breast reconstruction techniques were graded by a six-member panel. To test interrater and intrarater correlation across time, four physicians evaluated the results of abdominally based breast reconstructions following nipple-sparing mastectomies. Graded aesthetic outcomes of 53 patients showed that the Cronbach alpha of the subitems of the scale was 0.926, with no single item that, if excluded, would increase it. Twenty-two patients underwent aesthetic outcomes grading at four different time points. The mean overall appearance was 3.71 ± 0.62. The mean grade for overall nipple appearance was 4.0 ± 0.57. The coefficient alpha of the panel overall aesthetic grade across different time points was 0.957; whereas intragrader reliability for graders 1 through 4 individually showed alpha coefficients of 0.894, 0.9, 0.898, and 0.688, respectively. Similar results were found for the other items of the scale. The proposed aesthetic scale evaluates different aspects of the breast reconstruction aesthetic result with excellent internal consistency among its subitems. Grading by a gender-balanced, diverse four-member panel using postoperative photographs showed higher reliability and reproducibility compared to single graders.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Breast aesthetics impacts patients' quality of life after breast reconstruction, but patients and surgeons frequently disagree on the final aesthetic evaluation. The need for a comprehensive, validated tool to evaluate breast aesthetics independently from the patient motivated this study.
METHODS
The 13-item Validated Breast Aesthetic Scale was developed after several internal meetings, and worded to be understood by a nonspecialist. Three items are common for both breasts, with the remaining being side-specific. To test the internal consistency of the scale subitems, postoperative photographs after different breast reconstruction techniques were graded by a six-member panel. To test interrater and intrarater correlation across time, four physicians evaluated the results of abdominally based breast reconstructions following nipple-sparing mastectomies.
RESULTS
Graded aesthetic outcomes of 53 patients showed that the Cronbach alpha of the subitems of the scale was 0.926, with no single item that, if excluded, would increase it. Twenty-two patients underwent aesthetic outcomes grading at four different time points. The mean overall appearance was 3.71 ± 0.62. The mean grade for overall nipple appearance was 4.0 ± 0.57. The coefficient alpha of the panel overall aesthetic grade across different time points was 0.957; whereas intragrader reliability for graders 1 through 4 individually showed alpha coefficients of 0.894, 0.9, 0.898, and 0.688, respectively. Similar results were found for the other items of the scale.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed aesthetic scale evaluates different aspects of the breast reconstruction aesthetic result with excellent internal consistency among its subitems. Grading by a gender-balanced, diverse four-member panel using postoperative photographs showed higher reliability and reproducibility compared to single graders.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35349538
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009156
pii: 00006534-202206000-00004
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1297-1308Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
Zhong T, McCarthy C, Min S, et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: A prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer 2012;118:1701–1709.
van Turnhout AA, Fuchs S, Lisabeth-Broné K, Vriens-Nieuwenhuis EJC, van der Sluis WB. Surgical outcome and cosmetic results of autologous fat grafting after breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer: A retrospective cohort study of 222 fat grafting sessions in 109 patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41:1334–1341.
Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, Belin TR, Wyatt GE, Ganz PA. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1422–1429.
Dean C, Chetty U, Forrest AP. Effects of immediate breast reconstruction on psychosocial morbidity after mastectomy. Lancet 1983;1:459–462.
Farhangkhoee H, Matros E, Disa J. Trends and concepts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113:891–894.
Kim MS, Sbalchiero JC, Reece GP, Miller MJ, Beahm EK, Markey MK. Assessment of breast aesthetics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:186e–194e.
Maass SW, Bagher S, Hofer SO, Baxter NN, Zhong T. Systematic review: Aesthetic assessment of breast reconstruction outcomes by healthcare professionals. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:4305–4316.
Potter S, Harcourt D, Cawthorn S, et al. Assessment of cosmesis after breast reconstruction surgery: A systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:813–823.
Heil J, Carolus A, Dahlkamp J, et al. Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: Subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation. Breast 2012;21:61–65.
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.
Duraes EFR, Schwarz GS, de Sousa JB, et al. Factors influencing the aesthetic outcome and quality of life after breast reconstruction: A cross-sectional study. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84:494–506.
Dikmans REG, Nene LEH, Bouman MB, et al. The Aesthetic Items Scale: A tool for the evaluation of aesthetic outcome after breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5:e1254.
Heil J, Dahlkamp J, Golatta M, et al. Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: Do objectively measured results match patients’ evaluations? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:134–138.
Negenborn VL, Volders JH, Krekel NMA, et al. Breast-conserving therapy for breast cancer: Cosmetic results and options for delayed reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:1336–1344.
Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Jacobs GJ, et al. Cosmetic outcome assessment following breast-conserving therapy: A comparison between BCCT.core software and panel evaluation. Int J Breast Cancer 2014;2014:716860.
Edsander-Nord A, Brandberg Y, Wickman M. Quality of life, patients’ satisfaction, and aesthetic outcome after pedicled or free TRAM flap breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:1142–1153; discussion 1154–1155.
Cohen M, Evanoff B, George LT, Brandt KE. A subjective rating scale for evaluating the appearance outcome of autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:440–449.
Djohan R, Gage E, Gatherwright J, et al. Patient satisfaction following nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: An 8-year outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:818–829.
Cardoso MJ, Santos AC, Cardoso J, Barros H, Cardoso De Oliveira M. Choosing observers for evaluation of aesthetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:879–881.
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, et al. Turning subjective into objective: The BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast 2007;16:456–461.
Gilmour A, Mackay IR, Young D, Hill ME, Brown L, Malyon AD. The use of real-time digital video in the assessment of post-operative outcomes of breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:1357–1363.
Racz JM, Hong NL, Latosinsky S. In search of a gold standard scoring system for the subjective evaluation of cosmetic outcomes following breast-conserving therapy. Breast J. 2015;21:345–351.
Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, et al. Evaluations of aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery by surgeons of different gender and specialty: A prospective controlled study. Breast 2011;20:407–412.
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC, Barros H, Cardoso de Oliveira M. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 2006;15:52–57.
Lowery JC, Wilkins EG, Kuzon WM, Davis JA. Evaluations of aesthetic results in breast reconstruction: An analysis of reliability. Ann Plast Surg. 1996;36:601–606; discussion 607.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381.
Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17:101–110.
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Signoretti M, Persichetti P. Analysis of symmetry stability following implant-based breast reconstruction and contralateral management in 582 patients with long-term outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42:936–940.
Ron O, Inbal A, Arad E, et al. Superomedial pedicle vertical scar breast reduction: Objective and subjective assessment of breast symmetry and aesthetics. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42:639–647.
Garbay JR, Rietjens M, Petit JY. Esthetic results of breast reconstruction after amputation for cancer: 323 cases (in French). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1992;21:405–412.
Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW, Stewart J, Morgan AA. The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999;25:566–570.
Visser NJ, Damen THC, Timman R, Hofer SOP, Mureau MAM. Surgical results, aesthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction after microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction following failed implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:26–36.
Duraes EFR, Baker T, Morisada M, et al. Aesthetic outcome and quality of life after breast reconstruction: What positively influences patient’s satisfaction? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016;4(4S):14.
Godwin Y, Barron EJ, Edmunds MC, et al. A comparison of the patient and surgeon opinion on the long-term aesthetic outcome of reduction mammaplasty: Have we improved over 15 years? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:932–938.