Patient-Reported Outcomes of Aesthetics and Satisfaction in Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Implants and Fat Grafting.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct-to-implant (DTI) and tissue expander/implant (TE/I) reconstructions are the most common implant-based reconstructions after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). However, there are little data beyond complication rates comparing these options. Fat grafting has emerged as an adjunct in NSM reconstructions to improve aesthetic results; however, its impact on patient perceptions of aesthetic outcomes remain unknown. To improve patient-centered care, aesthetic outcomes must be considered from the patients' perspective. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes of aesthetic satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing immediate DTI vs TE/I reconstruction after NSM and to assess the role of fat grafting on these outcomes. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study comparing NSM patients undergoing DTI or TE/I reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the BREAST-Q. Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed using t test and Fisher's exact test, respectively. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients underwent 113 reconstructions with either DTI (n = 41) or TE/I (n = 18). Mean follow up was 12.1 months. DTI and TE/I patients had comparable satisfaction with outcome, though TE/I patients had significantly larger final implant sizes. TE/I who underwent fat grafting also had significantly higher satisfaction with outcome and psychosocial wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcomes are comparable between DTI and TE/I reconstructions after NSM. In order for TE/I patients to achieve a similar level of satisfaction, they may require a larger final implant and additional operations compared to DTI patients. Additionally, fat grafting improves overall satisfaction. TE/I patients may have different aesthetic expectations than DTI patients, emphasizing patient-centered discussions are essential to optimizing outcomes after NSM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
