The Partner Perspective on Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Maxi von Glinski, Nikla Holler, Sherko Kümmel, Christoph Wallner, Johannes Maximilian Wagner, Alexander Sogorski, Felix Reinkemeier, Mattea Reinisch, Marcus Lehnhardt, Björn Behr
Author Information
  1. Maxi von Glinski: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Burn Center, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany. Maxi.vonGlinski@ruhr-uni-bochum.de. ORCID
  2. Nikla Holler: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Burn Center, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.
  3. Sherko Kümmel: Clinic for Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Luisenstraße 65, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
  4. Christoph Wallner: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Burn Center, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.
  5. Johannes Maximilian Wagner: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Burn Center, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.
  6. Alexander Sogorski: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Burn Center, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.
  7. Felix Reinkemeier: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Burn Center, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.
  8. Mattea Reinisch: Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Henricistraße 92, 45136, Essen, Germany.
  9. Marcus Lehnhardt: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Burn Center, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.
  10. Björn Behr: Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Burn Center, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Partner involvement in the decision-making process concerning breast reconstruction (BR) after a breast cancer diagnosis may be very supportive for the patient. So far, no study evaluates partner satisfaction with the outcome after BR and the relationship to patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to assess and compare partner satisfaction of BR with autologous tissue (ABR) and prosthetic implants (IBR), respectively, and compare it to patient-reported outcomes.
patients AND METHODS: All patients undergoing ABR and IBR between January 2014 and December 2020 were asked to participate with their partners. patient and partner satisfaction with breast reconstruction, overall outcome as well as patient's perceived and self-reported psychosocial well-being were evaluated using the Breast-Q and a modified partner questionnaire, respectively.
RESULTS: Fifty-three couples participated (IBR: n=30, ABR: n = 23). patient and partner satisfaction with breast (r = 0.552), outcome (r = 0.465) as well as patient's perceived and self-report psychosocial well-being (r = 0.495) were highly correlated with partners scoring significantly higher (p<0.001). In terms of partner satisfaction, both reconstructive procedures achieved satisfactory results. ABR scored higher in terms of softness of breast and how natural the breast feels to touch whereas IBR was rated superior evaluating the breast size.
CONCLUSION: Both reconstructive procedures achieve satisfactory results in terms partner satisfaction whereas patient's psychosocial well-being was highly overestimated by their partners. Hence, partner inclusion in the regular psycho-oncological support might further sensitize them of the high psychological burden of a breast cancer diagnosis and therefore stabilize patients private support system.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Keywords

References

  1. BMC Cancer. 2010 Apr 29;10:171 [PMID: 20429922]
  2. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jul;134(1):173e-175e [PMID: 25028843]
  3. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022 Aug;46(4):1567-1574 [PMID: 35043247]
  4. Ann Plast Surg. 2022 Jun 1;88(6):695-703 [PMID: 35102018]
  5. Minerva Ginecol. 1982 Nov;34(11):971-5 [PMID: 7155426]
  6. Cancer Invest. 1999;17(5):342-8 [PMID: 10370362]
  7. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(5):509-18 [PMID: 17399660]
  8. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008 Oct;61(10):1188-94 [PMID: 17604241]
  9. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Jan 1;147(1):11-19 [PMID: 33002986]
  10. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):1518-1526 [PMID: 26017588]
  11. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 May;145(5):1109-1123 [PMID: 32332522]
  12. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Apr;73(2):300-11 [PMID: 15796638]
  13. Psychooncology. 2013 Jul;22(7):1653-7 [PMID: 23045167]
  14. Breast J. 2012 Jul-Aug;18(4):318-25 [PMID: 22607016]
  15. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Jul;146(1):117-26 [PMID: 24831775]
  16. Qual Life Res. 2018 Feb;27(2):539-543 [PMID: 29119452]
  17. Breast Dis. 2005-2006;23:103-13 [PMID: 16823173]
  18. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Nov;69(11):1478-1485 [PMID: 27650121]
  19. Breast. 2021 Oct;59:176-182 [PMID: 34271290]
  20. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Sep;126(3):769-778 [PMID: 20463624]
  21. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Aug;136(2):213-220 [PMID: 25909301]
  22. BJS Open. 2021 Jan 8;5(1): [PMID: 33609398]
  23. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2007 Feb;11(1):66-73 [PMID: 16872901]
  24. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017 Aug;70(8):1051-1058 [PMID: 28599842]
  25. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Nov;130(5):991-1000 [PMID: 23096600]
  26. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Jul 15;8(7):e2943 [PMID: 32802647]
  27. Front Surg. 2022 Sep 05;9:903734 [PMID: 36132203]
  28. Breast. 2020 Dec;54:127-132 [PMID: 33010626]
  29. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Mar 20;32(9):919-26 [PMID: 24550418]
  30. J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 1;34(13):1518-27 [PMID: 26951322]

MeSH Term

Humans
Female
Treatment Outcome
Mammaplasty
Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Prostheses and Implants
Retrospective Studies
Breast Implants
Esthetics

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0breastpartnersatisfactionreconstruction=PartnerBRcanceroutcomeABRIBRpartnerspatient'spsychosocialwell-beingr0termsBreastdiagnosispatientstudycomparerespectivelyoutcomespatientsPatientwellperceivedhighlyhigherreconstructiveproceduressatisfactoryresultswhereassupportAutologousINTRODUCTION:involvementdecision-makingprocessconcerningmaysupportivefarevaluatesrelationshipaimassessautologoustissueprostheticimplantspatient-reportedPATIENTSANDMETHODS:undergoingJanuary2014December2020askedparticipateoverallself-reportedevaluatedusingBreast-QmodifiedquestionnaireRESULTS:Fifty-threecouplesparticipatedIBR:n=30ABR:n23552465self-report495correlatedscoringsignificantlyp<0001achievedscoredsoftnessnaturalfeelstouchratedsuperiorevaluatingsizeCONCLUSION:achieveoverestimatedHenceinclusionregularpsycho-oncologicalmightsensitizehighpsychologicalburdenthereforestabilizeprivatesystemLEVELOFEVIDENCEIII:journalrequiresauthorsassignlevelevidencearticlefulldescriptionEvidence-BasedMedicineratingspleasereferTableContentsonlineInstructionsAuthorswwwspringercom/00266PerspectiveImplant-BasedReconstructionImplant-basedPatient-reported

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.