Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Patients Satisfaction with Direct to Implant versus Latissimus Dorsi Flap with Implant Breast Reconstruction Using Breast-Q

  • Ji Min Kim (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Hospital) ;
  • Woo Jin Song (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Hospital) ;
  • Sang Gue Kang (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Hospital)
  • Received : 2021.06.28
  • Accepted : 2022.11.07
  • Published : 2022.11.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background The latissimus musculocutaneous flap (LD flap) is a useful option for breast reconstruction following mastectomy. It has the advantage of obtaining sufficient tissue padding and natural shape by using autologous tissue. However, with the emergence of the skin-sparing mastectomy technique and artificial dermis matrix, direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction has become the first choice of surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the satisfaction levels of patients who underwent DTI and LD flap with implant using patient-reported Breast-Q results. Methods A retrospective study was performed reviewing the records of 49 women who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with DTI or LD flap with implant and responded to the BREAST-Q questionnaire after the operation. The patient-reported breast-Q results were analyzed and correlated to the demographic information and intraoperative information. Results A total of 26 patients who underwent reconstruction with LD flap with implant and 23 patients with DTI were identified and responded to the questionnaire after an average of 32.3 and 10.4 months postoperation, respectively. According to the patient response to the breast-q values, satisfaction with breast was 60.0 and 57.0 points, psychosocial well-being 61.0 and 60.0 points, and sexual well-being 41.0 and 43.0 points in the two groups. Overall, there was no significant difference in the breastQ score between the two groups. Conclusion Patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction seemed equally satisfied with the appearance and outcome of their breast reconstruction compared with LD flap with implant. Therefore, it appears that DTI is adequately replacing LD with implant.

Keywords

References

  1. Sood R, Easow JM, Konopka G, Panthaki ZJ. Latissimus dorsi flap in breast reconstruction: recent innovations in the workhorse flap. Cancer Contr 2018;25(01):1073274817744638
  2. Song WJ, Kang SG, Kim EK, et al. Current status of and trends in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction in Korea. Arch Plast Surg 2020;47(02):118-125 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2019.01676
  3. Pacella SJ, Vogel JE, Locke MB, Codner MA. Aesthetic and technical refinements in latissimus dorsi implant breast reconstruction: a 15-year experience. Aesthet Surg J 2011;31(02):190-199 https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X10395506
  4. Margulies IG, Salzberg CA. The use of acellular dermal matrix in breast reconstruction: evolution of techniques over 2 decades. Gland Surg 2019;8(01):3-10 https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.10.05
  5. Liu J, Hou J, Li Z, Wang B, Sun J. Efficacy of acellular dermal matrix in capsular contracture of implant-based breast reconstruction: a single-arm meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020;44(03):735-742 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01603-2
  6. Naoum GE, Salama L, Niemierko A, et al. Single stage direct-toimplant breast reconstruction has lower complication rates than tissue expander and implant and comparable rates to autologous reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020;106(03):514-524 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.11.008
  7. Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2018;153(10):901-908
  8. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREASTQ: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129(02):293-302 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aec6b
  9. Srinivasa DR, Clemens MW, Qi J, et al. Obesity and breast reconstruction: complications and patient-reported outcomes in a multicenter, prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(03):481e-490e https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006543
  10. Pirro O, Mestak O, Vindigni V, et al. Comparison of patientreported outcomes after implant versus autologous tissue breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5(01):e1217
  11. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL. Longterm patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2018;153(10):891-899 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1677
  12. Klifto KM, Aravind P, Major M, et al. Differences between breast cancer reconstruction and institutionally established normative data using the BREAST-Q reconstruction module: a comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(06):1371-1379 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006810
  13. 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(05):1046e-1055e https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003241
  14. Yang JY, Kim CW, Lee JW, Kim SK, Lee SA, Hwang E. Considerations for patient selection: prepectoral versus subpectoral implantbased breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2019;46(06):550-557 https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2019.00353