Dataset Information

Systematization of Oncoplastic Surgery: Selection of Surgical Techniques and Patient-Reported Outcome in a Cohort of 1,035 Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Functional and aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery are vital endpoints for patients with primary breast cancer. A large variety of oncoplastic techniques exist; however, it remains unclear which techniques yield the highest rates of local control at first surgery, omission of reexcision or subsequent mastectomy, and merits the highest degree of patient satisfaction.

Methods

In this retrospective case cohort trial with a customized investigational questionnaire for assessment of patient satisfaction with the surgical result, we analyzed 1,035 patients with primary, unilateral breast cancer and oncoplastic surgery from 2004 to 2009.

Results

Analysis of patient reported outcome (PRO) revealed that 88 % of the cohort was satisfied with their aesthetic result using oncoplastic techniques following the concept presented. These results also were achieved in difficult tumor localizations, such as upper inner and lower inner quadrant. Conversion rate from breast-conserving therapy to secondary mastectomy was low at 7.2 % (n = 68/944 patients). The systematization of oncoplastic techniques presented-embedded in a multimodal concept of breast cancer therapy-facilitates tumor control with a few number of uncomplicated techniques adapted to tumor site and size with a median resection of 32 (range 11-793) g. Five-year recurrence rate in our cohort was 4.0 %.

Conclusions

Patient's satisfaction was independent from age, body mass index, resection volume, tumor localization, and type of oncoplastic surgery (p > 0.05). We identified postoperative pain as an important negative impact factor on patient's satisfaction with the aesthetic result (p = 0.0001).

SUBMITTER: Rezai M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4565865 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundKnee replacement is a very effective and indispensable treatment option for end-stage knee arthritis, and the number of cases has been increasing worldwide. A replaced knee joint without patient joint awareness is thought to be the ultimate goal of artificial knees. Joint awareness reportedly correlates with patient satisfaction. Although numbness around a replaced knee is a minor but common problem, its effect on postoperative outcome is controversial. Joint awareness also is sensitive to subtle abnormalities of the joint, so it must be negatively affected by numbness. Although numbness is minor, it cannot be ignored to further improve knee replacement outcomes. This study investigated the relationship between patient-reported numbness and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including joint awareness, and kneeling. We developed a numbness score based on a 5-point Likert scale on frequency of numbness, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.76 and higher scores indicating less numbness.MethodsThe numbness score, New Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), and other clinical and radiological data from 311 patients (394 primary knee replacements) were analyzed. Kneeling ability was evaluated by using kneeling-specific items in the KSS (KSS-Kneeling).ResultsNo numbness was found in 170 knees (43.1%), and some degree of numbness was found in the remaining 224 knees (56.9%). The numbness score showed weak-to-moderate correlations with KSS-Symptoms (r = 0.44), KSS-Satisfaction (r = 0.41), KSS-Activities (r = 0.29), and all KOOS subscales (r = 0.23-0.44), and FJS-12 (r = 0.42). Multiple regression analyses suggested that midline incision positively affected the numbness score over the anteromedial incision (p = 0.04) and that a better numbness score (p = 0.001), male sex (p < 0.0001), and better postoperative knee flexion angle (0.04) positively affected kneeling.ConclusionsThe numbness score positively correlated with PROMs and positively affected kneeling. Knee replacements performed via an anteromedial incision may be at higher risk for numbness.

Project description:PURPOSE:To assess patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for two implant placement techniques in cases of sinus bone atrophy (bone graft surgery (BGS) versus computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS)), after surgery and one year later, and to evaluate the clinical success of both treatments. METHODS:Sixty patients with bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla and in need of implant placement were randomly assigned to two groups, and in accordance with the case report form (CRF), 30 were treated with BGS and 30 with CAIS. Immediately after treatment and one year later, PROMs were assessed, and the clinical success of both treatments was evaluated. RESULTS:No significant differences were found between BGS and CAIS with regard to the following: loss of implants (p = 492); patient recommendation (p = 210); duration of surgery (p = 987); pain on the intervention day (p = 512); pain in the week after intervention (p = 299); and complications in the stage of surgery (p = 1.00). Similarly, at one year, no differences were found with regard to the following: pain around implant (p = 481); infection of implants (p = 491); abnormal radiographic imaging (p = 226); occurrence of undesirable events (p = 1.00); loss of one of the implants (p = 1.00); plaque detection (p = 1.00); bleeding on probing (p = 236); and presence of keratinized mucosa (p = 226). However, a significant difference was found among BGS and CAIS with regard to the number of consultations (p = 0001); number of implants placed (p = 033); and treatment difficulty (p = 0369). Significant differences were found for peri-implantitis (p = 0481) and radiology of craterization (p = 020) in clinical examination at the first year. CONCLUSION:Treatment difficulty and number of consultations were higher for BGS than for CAIS, as well as peri-implantitis and bone craterization at one year, indicating significant differences between the two treatments. However, there were no statistically significant differences between BGS and CAIS regarding the other PROMs, at placement and after one year.

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically assess the type of outcomes selected and the prevalence of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials and to quantify any misuse or underuse of patient reported outcomes using a specially developed tool that would allow estimation of the relevance of such outcomes to clinical decision making.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline and Embase.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials of the treatment for or prevention of cardiovascular disease published in 10 leading general medical and cardiology journals from January 2005 to December 2008.ResultsPrimary outcomes were patient important (death, morbidity, or patient reported outcomes) in only 93 of 413 trials (23%, SE 2%), whereas another 92 (22%, SE 2%) combined these outcomes with other less important ones into a composite. Sixty five trials (16%; SE 2%) used at least one instrument to measure patient reported outcomes, mostly in trials where such information would have been important or crucial for clinical decision making (52 trials). Patient reported outcomes were judged to be of little incremental value to a large number of, mostly explanatory, cardiovascular trials (152 trials). However, many trials in which patient reported outcomes would have been important or crucial for clinical decision making did not report such outcomes (122 of 174 trials, 70%). These included several trials that primarily aimed to improve symptoms or functional status, trials that tested interventions with a considerable potential for causing harm (mainly bleeding) that were not meaningfully measured, and trials with composite outcomes that were dominated by outcomes of questionable importance to patients.ConclusionsDespite a continued rise in the reporting of patient reported outcomes with no evidence for their misuse in more recent cardiovascular trials, they seem to be still underused once their relevance to clinical decision making has been taken into account. This was largely explained by inappropriate use of composite outcomes and inadequate measurement of harms.