Aesthetic, Quality-of-Life, and Clinical Outcomes after Inferior Pedicle Oncoplastic Reduction Mammoplasty.
Aesthetics
BREAST-Q
Breast reduction
Oncoplastic breast surgery
Oncoplastic reduction
Journal
Aesthetic plastic surgery
ISSN: 1432-5241
Titre abrégé: Aesthetic Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7701756
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
09
10
2022
accepted:
26
12
2022
medline:
1
6
2023
pubmed:
4
2
2023
entrez:
3
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Oncoplastic breast surgery is more likely to achieve superior aesthetic outcomes compared to lumpectomy alone. Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is a volume displacement oncoplastic technique that combines lumpectomy and reduction mammoplasty. Data on aesthetic and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after ORM are scarce in the literature. Based on a literature review, this present study reports outcomes on the largest group of ORM patients to date. A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent ORM between 2011 and 2018 at a tertiary care centre. Patients were excluded if no pedicle information was available or did not undergo post-operative radiotherapy. All patients with available post-operative photographs were aesthetically evaluated by four blinded, independent investigators blinded based on breast symmetry, nipple symmetry, and overall appearance. The BREAST-Q (breast conserving module) was used to assess QoL outcomes. Two-hundred-and-sixteen consecutive patients (223 breasts) were included. Macromastia (cup size D or higher) was present in 173 patients (80.1%). Inferior pedicle ORM was utilized in 179 (80.3%) breasts. Eighty-eight patients (40.7%) were aesthetically evaluated, of whom 69 patients (78.4%) had "good", "very good", or "excellent" grades in all aesthetic categories. Seventy-five patients (85.2%) had "good" or better grades in overall appearance. Preoperative ptosis grade, cup size, presence of post-operative complications, and breast specimen weight had no significant correlations with aesthetic grades. Inferior pedicle ORM was associated with a higher "satisfaction with breast" Q-score (p=0.017) compared to other pedicle approaches. Inferior pedicle ORM achieves objectively excellent aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction with the reconstruction. 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 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Oncoplastic breast surgery is more likely to achieve superior aesthetic outcomes compared to lumpectomy alone. Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is a volume displacement oncoplastic technique that combines lumpectomy and reduction mammoplasty. Data on aesthetic and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after ORM are scarce in the literature. Based on a literature review, this present study reports outcomes on the largest group of ORM patients to date.
METHODS
A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent ORM between 2011 and 2018 at a tertiary care centre. Patients were excluded if no pedicle information was available or did not undergo post-operative radiotherapy. All patients with available post-operative photographs were aesthetically evaluated by four blinded, independent investigators blinded based on breast symmetry, nipple symmetry, and overall appearance. The BREAST-Q (breast conserving module) was used to assess QoL outcomes.
RESULTS
Two-hundred-and-sixteen consecutive patients (223 breasts) were included. Macromastia (cup size D or higher) was present in 173 patients (80.1%). Inferior pedicle ORM was utilized in 179 (80.3%) breasts. Eighty-eight patients (40.7%) were aesthetically evaluated, of whom 69 patients (78.4%) had "good", "very good", or "excellent" grades in all aesthetic categories. Seventy-five patients (85.2%) had "good" or better grades in overall appearance. Preoperative ptosis grade, cup size, presence of post-operative complications, and breast specimen weight had no significant correlations with aesthetic grades. Inferior pedicle ORM was associated with a higher "satisfaction with breast" Q-score (p=0.017) compared to other pedicle approaches.
CONCLUSION
Inferior pedicle ORM achieves objectively excellent aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction with the reconstruction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV
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 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 36735002
doi: 10.1007/s00266-023-03257-7
pii: 10.1007/s00266-023-03257-7
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
905-911Informations de copyright
© 2023. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
Références
Jonczyk MM, Jean J, Graham R et al (2019) Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12 year analysis. Breast Cancer Res Tr 173:267–274
doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-5018-1
Mansell J, Weiler-Mithoff E, Stallard S et al (2017) Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy. Breast 32:179–185
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.02.006
pubmed: 28214785
Barnea Y, Inbal A, Barsuk D et al (2014) Oncoplastic reduction using the vertical scar superior-medial pedicle pattern technique for immediate partial breast reconstruction. Can J Surg 57:E134–E140
doi: 10.1503/cjs.031213
pubmed: 25078939
pmcid: 4119127
Chan SWW, Chueng PSY, Lam SH (2010) Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. World J Surg 34:1447–1452
doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0278-x
pubmed: 19936979
Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM et al (2014) A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plas Surg 72:145–149
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182605598
D’Aniello C, Grimaldi L, Barbato A et al (1999) Cosmetic results in 242 patients treated by conservative surgery for breast cancer. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 34:419–422
Clough KB, Cuminet J, Fitoussi A et al (1998) Cosmetic sequelae after conservative treatment for breast cancer: classification and results of surgical correction. Ann Plast Surg 41:471–481
doi: 10.1097/00000637-199811000-00004
pubmed: 9827948
Munhoz AM, Montag E, Arruda E et al (2008) Assessment of immediate conservative breast surgery reconstruction: a classification system of defects revisited and an algorithm for selecting the appropriate technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:716–727
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000299295.74100.fa
pubmed: 18317121
Santos G, Urban C, Edelweiss MI et al (2015) Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 22:2500–2508
doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4301-6
pubmed: 25519931
Chang EI, Peled AW, Foster RD et al (2012) Evaluating the feasibility of extended partial mastectomy and immediate reduction mammoplasty reconstruction as an alternative to mastectomy. Ann Surg 255:1151–1157
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824f9769
pubmed: 22470069
Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B et al (2003) Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg 237:26–34
doi: 10.1097/00000658-200301000-00005
pubmed: 12496527
pmcid: 1513973
Peled AW, Sbitany H, Foster RD et al (2014) Oncoplastic mammoplasty as a strategy for reducing reconstructive complications associated with postmastectomy radiation therapy. Breast J 20:302–307
doi: 10.1111/tbj.12257
pubmed: 24750512
Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C et al (2010) Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1375–1391
doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0792-y
pubmed: 20140531
Scomacao I, Al-Hilli Z, Schwarz G (2020) The role of oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 21:1–11
doi: 10.1007/s11864-020-00793-1
Audretsch W, Rezai M, Kolotas C et al (1998) Tumor-specific immediate reconstruction in breast cancer patients. Semin Plast Surg 11:71–100
doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1080243
Kronowitz SJ, Kuerer HM, Buchholz TA et al (2008) A management algorithm and practical oncoplastic surgical techniques for repairing partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:1631–1647
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818cbf1b
pubmed: 19050516
Duraes EFR, Durand P, Morisada M et al (2022) A novel validated breast aesthetic scale – VBRAS. Plast Reconstr Surg 149:1297–1308
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009156
pubmed: 35349538
Klassen AF, Dominici L, Fuzesi S et al (2020) Development and validation of the BREAST-Q breast conserving therapy module. Ann Surg Onc 27:2238–2247
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-08195-w
Kronowitz SJ, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM et al (2007) Practical guidelines for repair of partial mastectomy defects using the breast reduction technique in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:1755–1768
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000287130.77835.f6
pubmed: 18090737
Matory WE Jr, Wertheimer M, Fitzgerald TJ et al (1990) Aesthetic results following partial mastectomy and radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 85:739–746
doi: 10.1097/00006534-199005000-00014
pubmed: 2326356
Piper ML, Esserman LJ, Sbitany H et al (2016) Outcomes following oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg 76:S222–S226
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000720
pubmed: 26808743
Emiroglu M, Sert I, Karaali C et al (2016) The effectiveness of simultaneous oncoplastic breast surgery in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer 23:463–470
doi: 10.1007/s12282-015-0585-z
pubmed: 25585655
Munhoz AM, Montag E, Arruda EG et al (2006) Critical analysis of reduction mammaplasty techniques in combination with conservative breast surgery for early breast cancer treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1091–1103
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000202121.84583.0d
pubmed: 16582770
Gray JR, McCormick B, Cox L et al (1991) Primary breast irradiation in large-breasted or heavy women: analysis of cosmetic outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:347–354
doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(91)90781-X
pubmed: 2061111
Atisha DM, Alderman AK, Kuhn LE et al (2008) The impact of obesity on patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1893–1899
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181715198
pubmed: 18520874
Emiroglu M, Sert I, Inal A (2015) The role of oncoplastic breast surgery in breast cancer treatment. J Breast Health 11:1–9
doi: 10.5152/tjbh.2014.2215
pubmed: 28331682
pmcid: 5351526
Davison SP, Mesbahi AN, Ducic I et al (2007) The versatility of the superomedial pedicle with various skin reduction patterns. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:1466–1476
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000282033.58509.76
pubmed: 18040175
Habibi M, Broderick KP, Sebai ME et al (2018) Oncoplastic breast reconstruction: should all patients be considered. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 27:167–180
doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2017.07.007
pubmed: 29132559
Hall-Findlay EJ, Shestak KC (2015) Breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:531e–544e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001622
pubmed: 26397273
Weber WP, Haug M, Kurzeder C et al (2018) Oncoplastic breast consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 172:523–537
doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4937-1
pubmed: 30182349
pmcid: 6245050
Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF et al (2017) Breast cancer and reconstruction: normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:1046e–1055e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003241
pubmed: 28445351
pmcid: 5713639
Howes BH, Watson DI, Xu C et al (2016) Quality of life following total mastectomy with and without reconstruction versus breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: a case-controlled cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69:1184–1191
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.06.004
pubmed: 27406255
Di Micco R, O’Connell RL, Barry PA et al (2017) Standard wide local excision or bilateral reduction mammoplasty in large-breasted women with small tumours: surgical and patient-reported outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:636–641
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.027
pubmed: 27908586
Gardfjell A, Dahlbäck C, Åhsberg K (2019) Patient satisfaction after unilateral oncoplastic volume displacement surgery for breast cancer, evaluated with the BREAST-Q
doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1640-6
pubmed: 31167659
pmcid: 6551885
Agrawal A (2019) Oncoplastic breast surgery and radiotherapy-Adverse aesthetic outcomes, proposed classification of aesthetic components, and causality attribution. Breast J 25:207–218
doi: 10.1111/tbj.13193
pubmed: 30710399
Yi A, Kim HH, Shin HJ et al (2009) Radiation-induced complications after breast cancer radiation therapy: a pictorial review of multimodality imaging findings. Korean J Radiol 10:496–507
doi: 10.3348/kjr.2009.10.5.496
pubmed: 19721835
pmcid: 2731868
Kronowitz SJ, Feledy JA, Hunt KK et al (2006) Determining the optimal approach to breast reconstruction after partial mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1–11
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000194899.01875.d6
pubmed: 16404237
Mattingly AE, Ma Z, Smith PD et al (2017) Early postoperative complications after oncoplastic reduction. South Med J 110:660–666
doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000706
pubmed: 28973708
pmcid: 7771341