Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
Single Center Oncoplastic Experience and Patient Satisfaction Reported via Patient Reported Outcomes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Xuanji, Mathews Alexandra, Erickson Anne, Veselack Teresa, Bucholz Eleanor, Vandevender Darl, Godellas Constantine, Vaince Faaiza
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS) is gaining in popularity compared with traditional breast conserving surgery due to wider resections and better satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes. This study analyzed OPS versus traditional breast conserving surgery outcomes: wound complications, reoperations for margins or fat necrosis, and ipsilateral recurrence.
METHODS: This retrospective review compared 191 OPS and traditional breast conserving surgery patients on patient-related factors, primary outcomes, and patient reported outcome measures results. A propensity score method analysis using 1:1 to nearest neighbor was also performed.
RESULTS: OPS patients were younger, less likely to be smokers, more likely to be ER+ and PR+, and had larger specimen volumes than did traditional breast conserving surgery patients (P < 0.05). There were also differences in distribution of invasive ductal carcinoma and noninvasive disease (P < 0.05). After the propensity score method, the differences observed between the cohorts disappeared. No differences were observed between groups for wound complication, reoperation for positive margins or fat necrosis, or ipsilateral recurrence. Results of patient reported outcome measures showed greater satisfaction with breast surgery in OPS patients (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: We showed that OPS is a noninferior technique that should be discussed with appropriate patients. Operative planning should involve patient preferences in optimizing long-term cosmetic outcomes.
METHODS: This retrospective review compared 191 OPS and traditional breast conserving surgery patients on patient-related factors, primary outcomes, and patient reported outcome measures results. A propensity score method analysis using 1:1 to nearest neighbor was also performed.
RESULTS: OPS patients were younger, less likely to be smokers, more likely to be ER+ and PR+, and had larger specimen volumes than did traditional breast conserving surgery patients (P < 0.05). There were also differences in distribution of invasive ductal carcinoma and noninvasive disease (P < 0.05). After the propensity score method, the differences observed between the cohorts disappeared. No differences were observed between groups for wound complication, reoperation for positive margins or fat necrosis, or ipsilateral recurrence. Results of patient reported outcome measures showed greater satisfaction with breast surgery in OPS patients (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: We showed that OPS is a noninferior technique that should be discussed with appropriate patients. Operative planning should involve patient preferences in optimizing long-term cosmetic outcomes.