Loading…

Single Center Oncoplastic Experience and Patient Satisfaction Reported via Patient Reported Outcomes

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 m...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 2022-05, Vol.10 (5), p.e4336-e4336
Main Authors: Wang, Xuanji, Mathews, Alexandra, Erickson, Anne, Veselack, Teresa, Bucholz, Eleanor, Vandevender, Darl, Godellas, Constantine, Vaince, Faaiza
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4345-d08949b9668e861eddd0341e72ff9cfdfb13e896690c6cd0d1845ccc3d41225e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4345-d08949b9668e861eddd0341e72ff9cfdfb13e896690c6cd0d1845ccc3d41225e3
container_end_page e4336
container_issue 5
container_start_page e4336
container_title Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
container_volume 10
creator Wang, Xuanji
Mathews, Alexandra
Erickson, Anne
Veselack, Teresa
Bucholz, Eleanor
Vandevender, Darl
Godellas, Constantine
Vaince, Faaiza
description 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. 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. 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 ( < 0.05). There were also differences in distribution of invasive ductal carcinoma and noninvasive disease ( < 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 ( < 0.01). 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004336
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_a2bde411b1a84a3881014eac667735c0</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_a2bde411b1a84a3881014eac667735c0</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2671277673</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4345-d08949b9668e861eddd0341e72ff9cfdfb13e896690c6cd0d1845ccc3d41225e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU1v1DAQhiMEolXpP0AoRy4p_v64IKFVWypV2oqCxM1y7MluijcOdtLCv8fLlu0WX8Yz885jj96qeovRGUZafrhcfj9DB4dRKl5UxwQL3Ugu2cuD-1F1mvPdVqUUw5K_ro4oFwQxzY4rf9sPqwD1AoYJUr0cXByDzVPv6vNfI6QeBge1HXx9Y6eSTPVtibmzburjUH-BMaYJfH3f271iX1zOk4sbyG-qV50NGU4f40n17eL86-Jzc728vFp8um4co4w3HinNdKuFUKAEBu89ogyDJF2nXee7FlNQpa2RE84jjxXjzjnqGSaEAz2prnZcH-2dGVO_sem3ibY3fwsxrYxNZbUAxpLWA8O4xVYxS5XCCDOwTggpKXeosD7uWOPcbsC7sliy4Rn0eWfo12YV743GRHDMC-D9IyDFnzPkyWz67CAEO0CcsyFCYiKlkLRI2U7qUsw5Qbd_BiOz9dsUv83_fpexd4df3A_9c_eJ-xBDcTf_CPMDJLMGG6a1QVgShLRoCCIE8UJttmRO_wDfy7bJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2671277673</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Single Center Oncoplastic Experience and Patient Satisfaction Reported via Patient Reported Outcomes</title><source>HEAL-Link subscriptions: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Wang, Xuanji ; Mathews, Alexandra ; Erickson, Anne ; Veselack, Teresa ; Bucholz, Eleanor ; Vandevender, Darl ; Godellas, Constantine ; Vaince, Faaiza</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xuanji ; Mathews, Alexandra ; Erickson, Anne ; Veselack, Teresa ; Bucholz, Eleanor ; Vandevender, Darl ; Godellas, Constantine ; Vaince, Faaiza</creatorcontrib><description>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. 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. 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 ( &lt; 0.05). There were also differences in distribution of invasive ductal carcinoma and noninvasive disease ( &lt; 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 ( &lt; 0.01). 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-7574</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-7574</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004336</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35620494</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</publisher><subject>Breast ; Original</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022-05, Vol.10 (5), p.e4336-e4336</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4345-d08949b9668e861eddd0341e72ff9cfdfb13e896690c6cd0d1845ccc3d41225e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4345-d08949b9668e861eddd0341e72ff9cfdfb13e896690c6cd0d1845ccc3d41225e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9126515/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9126515/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27903,27904,53770,53772</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35620494$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xuanji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathews, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veselack, Teresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucholz, Eleanor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandevender, Darl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Godellas, Constantine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaince, Faaiza</creatorcontrib><title>Single Center Oncoplastic Experience and Patient Satisfaction Reported via Patient Reported Outcomes</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open</addtitle><description>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. 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. 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 ( &lt; 0.05). There were also differences in distribution of invasive ductal carcinoma and noninvasive disease ( &lt; 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 ( &lt; 0.01). 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.</description><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Original</subject><issn>2169-7574</issn><issn>2169-7574</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU1v1DAQhiMEolXpP0AoRy4p_v64IKFVWypV2oqCxM1y7MluijcOdtLCv8fLlu0WX8Yz885jj96qeovRGUZafrhcfj9DB4dRKl5UxwQL3Ugu2cuD-1F1mvPdVqUUw5K_ro4oFwQxzY4rf9sPqwD1AoYJUr0cXByDzVPv6vNfI6QeBge1HXx9Y6eSTPVtibmzburjUH-BMaYJfH3f271iX1zOk4sbyG-qV50NGU4f40n17eL86-Jzc728vFp8um4co4w3HinNdKuFUKAEBu89ogyDJF2nXee7FlNQpa2RE84jjxXjzjnqGSaEAz2prnZcH-2dGVO_sem3ibY3fwsxrYxNZbUAxpLWA8O4xVYxS5XCCDOwTggpKXeosD7uWOPcbsC7sliy4Rn0eWfo12YV743GRHDMC-D9IyDFnzPkyWz67CAEO0CcsyFCYiKlkLRI2U7qUsw5Qbd_BiOz9dsUv83_fpexd4df3A_9c_eJ-xBDcTf_CPMDJLMGG6a1QVgShLRoCCIE8UJttmRO_wDfy7bJ</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Wang, Xuanji</creator><creator>Mathews, Alexandra</creator><creator>Erickson, Anne</creator><creator>Veselack, Teresa</creator><creator>Bucholz, Eleanor</creator><creator>Vandevender, Darl</creator><creator>Godellas, Constantine</creator><creator>Vaince, Faaiza</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><general>Wolters Kluwer</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Single Center Oncoplastic Experience and Patient Satisfaction Reported via Patient Reported Outcomes</title><author>Wang, Xuanji ; Mathews, Alexandra ; Erickson, Anne ; Veselack, Teresa ; Bucholz, Eleanor ; Vandevender, Darl ; Godellas, Constantine ; Vaince, Faaiza</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4345-d08949b9668e861eddd0341e72ff9cfdfb13e896690c6cd0d1845ccc3d41225e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Original</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xuanji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathews, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veselack, Teresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucholz, Eleanor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandevender, Darl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Godellas, Constantine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaince, Faaiza</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Xuanji</au><au>Mathews, Alexandra</au><au>Erickson, Anne</au><au>Veselack, Teresa</au><au>Bucholz, Eleanor</au><au>Vandevender, Darl</au><au>Godellas, Constantine</au><au>Vaince, Faaiza</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Single Center Oncoplastic Experience and Patient Satisfaction Reported via Patient Reported Outcomes</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e4336</spage><epage>e4336</epage><pages>e4336-e4336</pages><issn>2169-7574</issn><eissn>2169-7574</eissn><abstract>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. 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. 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 ( &lt; 0.05). There were also differences in distribution of invasive ductal carcinoma and noninvasive disease ( &lt; 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 ( &lt; 0.01). 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</pub><pmid>35620494</pmid><doi>10.1097/GOX.0000000000004336</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2169-7574
ispartof Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022-05, Vol.10 (5), p.e4336-e4336
issn 2169-7574
2169-7574
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_a2bde411b1a84a3881014eac667735c0
source HEAL-Link subscriptions: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; PubMed Central
subjects Breast
Original
title Single Center Oncoplastic Experience and Patient Satisfaction Reported via Patient Reported Outcomes
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T20%3A43%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Single%20Center%20Oncoplastic%20Experience%20and%20Patient%20Satisfaction%20Reported%20via%20Patient%20Reported%20Outcomes&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery.%20Global%20open&rft.au=Wang,%20Xuanji&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e4336&rft.epage=e4336&rft.pages=e4336-e4336&rft.issn=2169-7574&rft.eissn=2169-7574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004336&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2671277673%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4345-d08949b9668e861eddd0341e72ff9cfdfb13e896690c6cd0d1845ccc3d41225e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2671277673&rft_id=info:pmid/35620494&rfr_iscdi=true