RSS-Feed abonnieren

DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1811167
Aligning Patient and Surgeon Aesthetic Priorities in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Authors

Abstract
Background
Currently, there is no published evidence on the aesthetic and functional aspirations of women undergoing autologous breast reconstruction. Recognizing that not all surgical goals can always be achieved, we aimed to develop a priority scale based on patient preferences to guide intraoperative decision-making.
Materials and Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional survey targeting patients, plastic surgery specialists, and trainees. Participants ranked 10 aesthetic and functional aspects of breast reconstruction (volume, shape, symmetry, sensitivity, texture, scarring on the breast and abdomen, umbilicus appearance, nipple–areola complex reconstruction, and similarity to the original breast). Responses were analyzed using nonparametric statistical methods, using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics, IBM Corp., New York, United States.).
Results
A total of 109 responses were collected (56 patients, 26 specialists, 27 trainees). Symmetry emerged as the top priority across all groups. Patients assigned higher importance than surgeons to sensitivity (6.77 vs. 4.38–4.50), nipple–areola complex reconstruction (8.18 vs. 7.72–7.78), and similarity to the original breast (6.55 vs. 4.63–4.89). Experienced surgeons valued breast texture more highly than less-experienced surgeons (8.67 vs. 6.70).
Conclusion
While symmetry is universally prioritized, patients place greater value on functional aspects like breast sensitivity. These insights highlight the importance of personalized preoperative counseling to align surgical planning with patient expectations.
Keywords
breast reconstruction - autologous breast reconstruction - abdominally based breast reconstructionPublikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
01. Oktober 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 WHO. Breast cancer. Accessed June 14, 2024 at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer
- 2 Chang EI. Narrative review of patient-reported outcomes of breast reconstruction. Ann Transl Med 2023; 11 (12) 415-415
- 3 Mayer HF. ed. Breast Reconstruction: Modern and Promising Surgical Techniques. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020
- 4 Fontein DBY, Oros M, Held L, Giovanoli P, Pusic AL, Lindenblatt N. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Free-Flap Breast Reconstructive Surgery over Time (PRO-BREST). Breast Care (Basel) 2022; 17 (03) 272-278
- 5 Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer as a global health concern. Br J Radiol 2022; 95 (1130) 20211033
- 6 Pittermann A, Radtke C. Psychological aspects of breast reconstruction after breast cancer. Breast Care (Basel) 2019; 14 (05) 298-301
- 7 Lee BT, Agarwal JP, Ascherman JA. et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: autologous breast reconstruction with DIEP or pedicled TRAM abdominal flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (05) 651e-664e
- 8 Foppiani JA, Hernandez Alvarez A, Kim EJ. et al. The value of microvascular breast reconstruction: cost equivalence of TRAM and DIEP flaps implications in the era of CMS reforms. Microsurgery 2024; 44 (04) e31185
- 9 Pluvy I, Bellidenty L, Ferry N, Benassarou M, Tropet Y, Pauchot J. Abdominal perforator flap (DIEP) and autologous latissimus dorsi in breast reconstruction. A retrospective comparative study about the first 60 cases of a same surgeon [in French]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2014; 59 (02) 103-114
- 10 Homsy A, Rüegg E, Montandon D, Vlastos G, Modarressi A, Pittet B. Breast reconstruction: a century of controversies and progress. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (04) 457-463
- 11 Saldanha IJ, Cao W, Broyles JM. et al Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021. . Accessed November 7, 2024 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK572812/
- 12 Ng SK, Hare RM, Kuang RJ, Smith KM, Brown BJ, Hunter-Smith DJ. Breast reconstruction post mastectomy: patient satisfaction and decision making. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (06) 640-644
- 13 Lee CN, Hultman CS, Sepucha K. Do patients and providers agree about the most important facts and goals for breast reconstruction decisions?. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 64 (05) 563-566
- 14 Shammas RL, Hung A, Mullikin A. et al. Patient preferences for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2023; 158 (12) 1285-1292
- 15 Davison SP, Ellor M, LaBove G. The metamorphosis of patient priorities throughout the breast reconstruction process. Aesthet Surg J 2024; 44 (11) 1186-1196
- 16 Sampathkumar U, Bui T, Liu J. et al. Objective analysis of breast symmetry in female patients undergoing breast reconstruction after total mastectomy. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum 2022; 5: ojac090
- 17 Spiegel AJ, Menn ZK, Eldor L, Kaufman Y, Dellon AL. Breast reinnervation: DIEP neurotization using the third anterior intercostal nerve. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013; 1 (08) e72
- 18 Bijkerk E, Beugels J, van Kuijk SMJ, Lataster A, van der Hulst RRWJ, Tuinder SMH. Clinical relevance of sensory nerve coaptation in DIEP flap breast reconstruction evaluated using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 150 (05) 959e-969e
- 19 Bubberman JM, Van Rooij JAF, Van der Hulst RRWJ, Tuinder SMH. Sensory recovery and the role of innervated flaps in autologous breast reconstruction-a narrative review. Gland Surg 2023; 12 (08) 1094-1109
- 20 Silverstein ML, Momeni A. Restoring sensation through abdominal flap neurotization in breast reconstruction. J Clin Med 2024; 13 (13) 3826
- 21 Beugels J, Cornelissen AJM, Spiegel AJ. et al. Sensory recovery of the breast after innervated and non-innervated autologous breast reconstructions: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70 (09) 1229-1241