Department of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, St John's Hospital, Howden West, Livingston EH54 6PP, UK; Department of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, UK.
Department of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, St John's Hospital, Howden West, Livingston EH54 6PP, UK.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014 Jul;67(7):932-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.04.006. Epub 2014 May 9.
In 1996 we published a study evaluating the difference between patient and surgeon opinion on the aesthetic outcome of reduction mammaplasty (see Ref. 1). The patients rated the aesthetic outcome of their surgery as significantly higher than the consultant panel. The surgical panel suggested scope for improvement. Areas of dissatisfaction were poor scarring, high placement of the nipple areola complex and high rates of revision surgery. Fifteen years on, the same team has regrouped to repeat this assessment. In 1996 the consultants scored their own patient results. In 2011 they graded the results of their former trainee who has modified her operative technique to address aesthetic problems highlighted in the first study. Forty-four patients attended a review clinic at least one year post reduction mammaplasty. Patient scored their satisfaction using the original questionnaire employed in 1996. The cohort were photographed and their images graded blindly by the original surgical panel. Statistical analysis was performed by the original statistician. The patients graded aesthetic aspects of body harmony, breast mound appearance, nipple areolar complex appearance and post-operative scarring significantly more positively (p<0.01) than both the 1996 patient cohort and surgical panel. The consultant panel showed a trend for more positive grades for all aesthetic features assessed versus their previous views but this was only significant for breast mound symmetry. They expressed that there was a decrease in post-operative breast ptosis (p<0.04) and improvement in the nipple areolar complex position (p=0.02). The rate of revision surgery has decreased from 53% to 16% between the studies. In keeping with clinical audit, outcomes have been assessed and modifications implemented to address aesthetic concerns. Assessment of outcomes following the modifications demonstrates a trend for increased patient and surgeon satisfaction. Patient satisfaction however still exceeds that of the surgeons.
1996 年,我们发表了一项研究,评估了患者和外科医生对缩乳术美容效果的看法差异(见参考文献 1)。患者对手术美容效果的评价明显高于顾问小组。外科小组建议进行改进。不满意的地方包括疤痕不佳、乳头乳晕复合体位置过高和再次手术率高。15 年后,同一团队重新进行了这项评估。1996 年,顾问对自己的患者结果进行了评分。2011 年,他们对以前的受训者的结果进行了评分,该受训者修改了手术技术,以解决第一项研究中突出的美容问题。44 名患者在接受缩乳术至少一年后参加了复诊诊所。患者使用 1996 年使用的原始问卷对满意度进行评分。该队列的照片由原始外科小组进行盲法评分。原始统计学家对统计数据进行了分析。患者对身体和谐、乳房隆突外观、乳头乳晕复合体外观和术后疤痕的美学方面的评分明显更积极(p<0.01),高于 1996 年的患者队列和外科小组。顾问小组对所有评估的美学特征的评分显示出更积极的趋势,但这仅对乳房隆突对称性有意义。他们表示,术后乳房下垂(p<0.04)减少,乳头乳晕复合体位置改善(p=0.02)。两次研究之间,再次手术率从 53%降至 16%。与临床审核一致,对结果进行了评估,并进行了改进以解决美容问题。对修改后的结果进行评估表明,患者和外科医生的满意度呈上升趋势。然而,患者的满意度仍然高于外科医生。