Nipple-areola reconstruction: Satisfaction and clinical determinants

被引:192
|
作者
Jabor, MA [1 ]
Shayani, P [1 ]
Collins, DR [1 ]
Karas, T [1 ]
Cohen, BE [1 ]
机构
[1] Christus St Jsoeph Hosp, Plast Surg Residency Program, Houston, TX 77002 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00006534-200208000-00013
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
After performing a chart review, the authors identified 120 patients who underwent breast cancer-related reconstruction. All charts were evaluated with regard to breast mound reconstruction type, nipple-areola reconstruction type, the interval between breast mound and nipple-areola reconstruction, the number of procedures needed to achieve nipple-areola reconstruction, patient history of radiation therapy, and complications. A questionnaire was then developed and mailed to all of the patients who underwent both breast mound and nipple/areola reconstruction (n = 105) to evaluate their level of satisfaction. Of the 43 patients who returned the questionnaire, 41 completed all portions correctly. The questionnaire evaluated patient satisfaction with breast mound reconstruction; patient satisfaction with nipple-areola reconstruction; what the patient disliked most about the nipple-areola reconstruction; and whether or not the patient would choose to have breast reconstruction again. Several parameters were then tested statistically against the reported patient satisfaction. A review of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction revealed that their breast mound reconstructions were done using either a TRAM flap (59 percent), a latissimus dorsi flap and an implant (19 percent), an expander followed by an implant (9 percent), an implant only (4 percent), or other means (9 percent). The nipple-areola was reconstructed in these patients with either a star flap (36 percent), nipple sharing (10 percent), a keyhole flap (9 percent), a skate flap (9 percent), an S-flap (8 percent), a full-thickness skin graft (6 percent), or by another means (22 percent). The number of procedures needed to achieve nipple-areola reconstruction was either one (in 66 percent of the patients), two (in 32 percent of the patients), or three or more (2 percent of the patients). Eleven percent of the patients experienced the complication of nipple necrosis. Satisfaction with breast mound reconstruction was reported by 81 percent of patients to be excellent/good, by 14 percent of patients to be fair, and by 5 percent of patients to be poor. Reported satisfaction with nipple-areola reconstruction was excellent/good for 64 percent of patients, fair for 22 percent of patients, and poor for 14 percent of patients. The factors patients disliked most about their nipple-areola reconstruction were, in descending order, lack of projection, color match, shape, size, texture, and position. Statistical analysis of the data revealed inferior patient satisfaction when there was a longer interval between breast mound and nipple areola reconstruction (p = 0.003). No significant difference was observed in nipple/areola reconstruction satisfaction ratings when compared with breast mound reconstruction type (p = 0.46), nipple-areola reconstruction type (p = 0.98), and history of radiation therapy (p = 0.23). There was also no significant difference when breast mound reconstruction was compared with technique (p = 0.51) and history of radiation therapy (p = 0.079). Overall, there was a greater satisfaction with breast mound reconstruction than with nipple-areola reconstruction (p = 0.0001).
引用
收藏
页码:457 / 463
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Nipple-areola complex malformations
    Bourahla, Ines
    Calibre, Clotilde
    Duquennoy-Martinot, Veronique
    ANNALES DE CHIRURGIE PLASTIQUE ESTHETIQUE, 2022, 67 (5-6): : 374 - 381
  • [42] Transposition of the Malpositioned Nipple-Areola Complex in Breast Reconstruction with Implants
    S. Takayanagi
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2010, 34 : 52 - 58
  • [43] INNERVATION OF THE NIPPLE-AREOLA COMPLEX
    FARINA, MA
    NEWBY, BG
    ALANI, HM
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 1980, 66 (04) : 497 - 501
  • [44] Nipple-areola complex prosthesis as a new arsenal for breast reconstruction
    Modarressi, Ali
    Empen, Louisa
    Favre, Charlotte
    JPRAS OPEN, 2024, 39 : 42 - 48
  • [45] Simple model for patient and trainee education in nipple-areola reconstruction
    Waterston, Stuart W.
    Butterworth, Mark
    ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2006, 57 (03) : 357 - 358
  • [46] Modified Medical Tattooing Techniques in Nipple-areola Complex Reconstruction
    Sasaki, Yumiko
    Matsumine, Hajime
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN, 2018, 6 (09)
  • [47] Neurofibromatosis of Nipple-Areola Complex
    Goksugur, Nadir
    Gurel, Safiye
    BREAST JOURNAL, 2011, 17 (04): : 424 - 424
  • [48] Nipple-areola complex preservation
    Vlajcic, Zlatko
    Rado, Zic
    Stanec, Sanda
    Stanec, Zdenko
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2006, 118 (06) : 1493 - 1495
  • [49] IMMEDIATE SINGLE-STAGE TRAM AND NIPPLE-AREOLA RECONSTRUCTION
    BEEGLE, PH
    CLINICS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 1994, 21 (02) : 321 - 326
  • [50] The electrocardiography dot as a preoperative marker for nipple-areola complex reconstruction
    Mahajan, AL
    Riordan, CL
    Hussey, AJ
    Regan, PJ
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2003, 111 (02) : 955 - 955