Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Jan;135(1):43-50.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000804.

Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes

Yassir Eltahir  1 , Lisanne L C H Werners, Marieke M Dreise, Ingeborg A Zeijlmans van Emmichoven, Paul M N Werker, Geertruida H de Bock
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes

Yassir Eltahir et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Breast reconstruction is an appropriate option offered to women who are diagnosed with breast cancer or gene mutations. It may be accomplished with implants or autologous procedures. This cross-sectional study evaluated the satisfaction and quality of life in addition to complications and secondary corrections in women after successful autologous or alloplastic (implant) breast reconstruction.

Methods: Women were included after successful breast reconstruction. The BREAST-Q instrument and standardized questionnaires on depression, recurrence concerns, and anxiety were sent by mail to the participants. In addition, data were collected on complications and secondary corrections. Multiple regression analysis and chi-square tests were applied to evaluate differences between the autologous breast reconstruction group (n = 47) and the implant breast reconstruction group (n = 45).

Results: Women with a successful autologous reconstruction were significantly more satisfied with their reconstructed breasts than women with successful alloplastic breast reconstruction as measured with the BREAST-Q satisfaction with breasts module (p = 0.023). More women with an autologous breast reconstruction required secondary correction than women with an implant breast reconstruction (p = 0.012). Other findings did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusions: Autologous breast reconstruction leads to more satisfaction than does implant breast reconstruction, notwithstanding that women with an autologous breast reconstruction more often required a secondary correction. The study found no ideal breast reconstruction suitable for all patients. However, this study may inform patients and medical teams in making decisions about breast reconstruction. This pilot study indicated several questions that we plan to further investigate in a larger prospective study.

Clinical question/level of evidence: Therapeutic, III.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Brennan ME, Spillane AJ. Uptake and predictors of post-mastectomy reconstruction in women with breast malignancy: Systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:527–541
    1. Reefy S, Patani N, Anderson A, Burgoyne G, Osman H, Mokbel K. Oncological outcome and patient satisfaction with skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: A prospective observational study. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:171
    1. Fischer JP, Nelson JA, Cleveland E, et al. Breast reconstruction modality outcome study: A comparison of expander/implants and free flaps in select patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:928–934
    1. Cordeiro PG, McCarthy CM. A single surgeon’s 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: Part II. An analysis of long-term complications, aesthetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:832–839
    1. Hu ES, Pusic AL, Waljee JF, et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship period. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1–8

Publication types