Display options
Cite
Le NK, Persing S, Dinis J, et al. A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148(5):708e-714edoi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008410.
Le, N. K., Persing, S., Dinis, J., Gabrick, K. S., Wu, R. T., Sinnott, C. J., Avraham, T., Young, A. O., & Alperovich, M. (2021). A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 148(5), 708e-714e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008410
Le, Nicole K, et al. "A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction." Plastic and reconstructive surgery vol. 148,5 (2021): 708e-714e. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008410
Le NK, Persing S, Dinis J, Gabrick KS, Wu RT, Sinnott CJ, Avraham T, Young AO, Alperovich M. A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Nov 01;148(5):708e-714e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008410. PMID: 34705769.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Nov 01;148(5):708e-714e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008410.

A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery

Nicole K Le, Sarah Persing, Jacob Dinis, Kyle S Gabrick, Robin T Wu, Catherine J Sinnott, Tomer Avraham, Anke Ott Young, Michael Alperovich

Affiliations

  1. From the Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida; Yale School of Public Health; Yale School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery; Long Island Plastic Surgical Group; Yale New Haven Health/Bridgeport Hospital; and South Nassau Communities Hospital.

PMID: 34705769 DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008410

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Subpectoral breast implant placement has in recent history predominated in breast reconstruction, but there has been more recent adoption of prepectoral implant reconstruction. There has been limited study to date of patient-reported outcomes comparing the two techniques.

METHODS: Patients who underwent direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were asked to complete BREAST-Q domains comparing quality of life and satisfaction. Descriptive, t test, chi-square test, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to compare BREAST-Q scores. Significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS: There were 64 patients (114 breasts) who underwent prepectoral reconstruction and 37 patients (68 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Among the 101 women (182 breasts), there were no significant differences between BREAST-Q scores and implant position for the Satisfaction with Breasts domain (adjusted p = 0.819), Psychosocial Well-being domain (adjusted p = 0.206), or Physical Well-being Chest domain (adjusted p = 0.110). The subpectoral implant cohort was associated with higher scores, 53 versus 47, for the Sexual Well-being module (adjusted p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had comparable BREAST-Q satisfaction scores for most modules regardless of implant plane. The subpectoral implant cohort scored higher for sexual well-being.

Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2019. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2019/cancer-facts-and-figures-2019.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2019. - PubMed
  2. Pollom EL, Qian Y, Chin AL, et al. Rising rates of bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Cancer2018;143:3262–3272. - PubMed
  3. Lucas DJ, Sabino J, Shriver CD, Pawlik TM, Singh DP, Vertrees AE. Doing more: Trends in breast cancer surgery, 2005 to 2011. Am Surg. 2015;81:74–80. - PubMed
  4. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–1232. - PubMed
  5. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Snell L, et al. Measuring and managing patient expectations for breast reconstruction: Impact on quality of life and patient satisfaction. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12:149–158. - PubMed
  6. Atisha D, Alderman AK, Lowery JC, Kuhn LE, Davis J, Wilkins EG. Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: Two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. Ann Surg. 2008;247:1019–1028. - PubMed
  7. Alderman AK, Wei Y, Birkmeyer JD. Use of breast reconstruction after mastectomy following the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act. JAMA2006;295:387–388. - PubMed
  8. Colwell AS. Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2012;1:139–141. - PubMed
  9. Stevens LA, McGrath MH, Druss RG, Kister SJ, Gump FE, Forde KA. The psychological impact of immediate breast reconstruction for women with early breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73:619–628. - PubMed
  10. Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J, et al. Direct-to-implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:869–877. - PubMed
  11. Jones G, Antony AK. Single stage, direct to implant pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019;8:53–60. - PubMed
  12. Manrique OJ, Banuelos J, Abu-Ghname A, et al. Surgical outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in young women. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open2019;7:e2119. - PubMed
  13. Li L, Su Y, Xiu B, et al. Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: A systematic review and meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:1542–1550. - PubMed
  14. Salibian AA, Frey JD, Karp NS. Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019;8:11–18. - PubMed
  15. Gruber RP, Kahn RA, Lash H, Maser MR, Apfelberg DB, Laub DR. Breast reconstruction following mastectomy: A comparison of submuscular and subcutaneous techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;67:312–317. - PubMed
  16. Salgarello M, Visconti G, Barone-Adesi L. Use of the subpectoral fascia flap for expander coverage in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1010–1011author reply 1011–1012. - PubMed
  17. Banbury J, Yetman R, Lucas A, Papay F, Graves K, Zins JE. Prospective analysis of the outcome of subpectoral breast augmentation: Sensory changes, muscle function, and body image. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:701–707discussion 708–711. - PubMed
  18. Puckett CL, Croll GH, Reichel CA, Concannon MJ. A critical look at capsule contracture in subglandular versus subpectoral mammary augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1987;11:23–28. - PubMed
  19. Biggs TM, Yarish RS. Augmentation mammaplasty: A comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;85:368–372. - PubMed
  20. Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1540–1544. - PubMed
  21. Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW. Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33:44–48. - PubMed
  22. Wallace MS, Wallace AM, Lee J, Dobke MK. Pain after breast surgery: A survey of 282 women. Pain1996;66:195–205. - PubMed
  23. Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Sigalove NM, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Rationale, indications, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:287–294. - PubMed
  24. Glasberg SB, Light D. AlloDerm and Strattice in breast reconstruction: A comparison and techniques for optimizing outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1223–1233. - PubMed
  25. Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V, Chattopadhyay R, Murphy J, Harvey JR. A prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral Strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:1077–1084. - PubMed
  26. 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. - PubMed
  27. Pusic AL, Matros E, Fine N, et al. Patient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2499–2506. - PubMed
  28. McCarthy CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, et al. The magnitude of effect of cosmetic breast augmentation on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:218–223. - PubMed
  29. Guimarães PA, Resende VC, Sabino Neto M, et al. Sexuality in aesthetic breast surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015;39:993–999. - PubMed
  30. Alderman A, Pusic A, Murphy DK. Prospective analysis of primary breast augmentation on body image using the BREAST-Q: Results from a nationwide study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:954e–960e. - PubMed
  31. Alderman AK, Bauer J, Fardo D, Abrahamse P, Pusic A. Understanding the effect of breast augmentation on quality of life: Prospective analysis using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:787–795. - PubMed
  32. Koh E, Watson DI, Dean NR. Impact of obesity on quality of life after breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83:622–628. - PubMed
  33. Vidya R, Berna G, Sbitany H, et al. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: A joint consensus guide from UK, European and USA breast and plastic reconstructive surgeons. Ecancermedicalscience2019;13:927. - PubMed
  34. Sbitany H, Langstein HN. Acellular dermal matrix in primary breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31(Suppl):30S–37S. - PubMed
  35. Highton L, Johnson R, Kirwan C, Murphy J. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open2017;5:e1488. - PubMed
  36. Jones JL, Hanby AM, Wells C, et al.; National Co-ordinating Committee of Breast Pathology. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL): An overview of presentation and pathogenesis and guidelines for pathological diagnosis and management. Histopathology2019;75:787–796. - PubMed
  37. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: A safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:432–443. - PubMed
  38. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:879–903. - PubMed
  39. Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. Normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q: Augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:846–853. - PubMed

Publication Types