Hennigs André, Biehl Hannah, Rauch Geraldine, Golatta Michael, Tabatabai Patrik, Domschke Christoph, Schott Sarah, Wallwiener Markus, Schütz Florian, Sohn Christof, Heil Jörg
Department of Gynecology, University Breast Unit, Im Neunheimer Feld 440, Heidelberg, Germany.
Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 May;23(5):1744-51. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z. Epub 2015 Nov 6.
We analyzed the change of aesthetic outcome (AO) over time and explored factors characterizing poor AO after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).
This prospective single-center cohort study included 849 patients preoperatively planned for BCS between September 2007 and December 2011. Long-term follow-up was made once in 2013. AO was measured by the Aesthetic Status (AS) of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale questionnaire. Clinical, surgical, and pathologic variables were evaluated to identify predictors of poor AO. We applied single factor variance analyses and univariable logistic regression analyses for outcome analysis.
The long-term follow-up rate in 2013 was 73 % (621 nonrecurrent with final BCS). A poor or fair AO was reported in 30 (4.8 %) and 98 (15.8 %) of these 621 patients, respectively. Single factor variance analysis showed a negative impact of higher specimen weight on AO (p < 0.001). Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed the following risk factors for poor AO: radial breast incision [odds ratio (OR) 1.97], periareolar incision (OR 1.85), fishmouth-shaped incision with resection of the nipple-areola complex (OR 8.12), impaired wound healing (OR 3.14), and seroma (OR 2.16). No patient rating her AO as fair or poor shortly after BCS improved in the long-term follow-up.
The incidence of poor AO is relatively rare but increases in the long-term follow-up. Patients experiencing poor AO after BCS are likely to remain unsatisfied with the outcome over time. Factors predicting unfavorable AO can assist preoperative planning with regards to the choice between simple breast conserving techniques or more complex oncoplastic procedures.
我们分析了保乳手术(BCS)后美学效果(AO)随时间的变化,并探讨了保乳手术后美学效果不佳的相关因素。
这项前瞻性单中心队列研究纳入了2007年9月至2011年12月期间术前计划行保乳手术的849例患者。2013年进行了长期随访。美学效果通过乳腺癌治疗结果量表问卷的美学状态(AS)进行测量。评估临床、手术和病理变量以确定美学效果不佳的预测因素。我们应用单因素方差分析和单变量逻辑回归分析进行结果分析。
2013年的长期随访率为73%(621例无复发且完成保乳手术)。在这621例患者中,分别有30例(4.8%)和98例(15.8%)报告美学效果差或一般。单因素方差分析显示标本重量增加对美学效果有负面影响(p<0.001)。单变量逻辑回归分析揭示了美学效果不佳的以下危险因素:乳房放射状切口[比值比(OR)1.97]、乳晕周围切口(OR 1.85)、切除乳头乳晕复合体的鱼嘴状切口(OR 8.12)、伤口愈合不良(OR 3.14)和血清肿(OR 2.16)。在长期随访中,没有一位在保乳手术后不久将其美学效果评为差或一般的患者有所改善。
美学效果不佳的发生率相对较低,但在长期随访中有所增加。保乳手术后美学效果不佳的患者随着时间的推移可能对结果仍不满意。预测不良美学效果的因素有助于在简单保乳技术或更复杂的肿瘤整形手术之间进行术前规划。