Showing posts with label patient satisfaction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patient satisfaction. Show all posts

Monday, 1 June 2020

Patient-Reported Outcomes after Irradiation of Tissue Expander versus Permanent Implant in Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Prospective Study



by Yoon, Alfred P.; Qi, Ji; Kim, Hyungjin M.; Hamill, Jennifer B.; Jagsi, Reshma; Pusic, Andrea L.; Wilkins, Edwin G.; Kozlow, Jeffrey H.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: May 2020 - Volume 145 - Issue 5 - p 917e-926e

Background: Whether to irradiate the tissue expander before implant exchange or to defer irradiation until after exchange in immediate, two-stage expander/implant reconstruction remains uncertain. The authors evaluated the effects of irradiation timing on complication rates and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing immediate expander/implant reconstruction.
Methods: Immediate expander/implant reconstruction patients undergoing postmastectomy radiation therapy at 11 Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium sites with demographic, clinical, and complication data were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed with BREAST-Q, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer–Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire surveys preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Survey scores and complication rates were analyzed using bivariate comparison and multivariable regressions.
Results: Of 317 patients who met inclusion criteria, 237 underwent postmastectomy radiation therapy before expander/implant exchange (before-exchange cohort), and 80 did so after exchange (after-exchange cohort). Timing of radiation had no significant effect on risks of overall complications (OR, 1.25; p = 0.46), major complications (OR, 1.18; p = 0.62), or reconstructive failure (OR, 0.72; p = 0.49). Similarly, radiation timing had no significant effect on 2-year patient-reported outcomes measured by the BREAST-Q or the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer survey. Outcomes measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System showed less anxiety, fatigue, and depression in the after-exchange group. Compared with preoperative assessments, 2-year patient-reported outcomes significantly declined in both cohorts for Satisfaction with Breasts, Physical Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being, but improved for anxiety and depression.
Conclusions: Radiation timing (before or after exchange) had no significant effect on complication risks or on most patient-reported outcomes in immediate expander/implant reconstruction. Although lower levels of anxiety, depression, and fatigue were observed in the after-exchange group, these differences may not be clinically significant. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Thursday, 17 May 2018

Happy and Unhappy Patients: A Quantitative Analysis of Online Plastic Surgeon Reviews for Breast Augmentation


by Dorfman, Robert G.; Purnell, Chad; Qiu, Cecil; Ellis, Marco F.; Basu, C. Bob; Kim, John Y. S.  

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: May 2018 - Volume 141 - Issue 5 - p 663e–673e

Background: Online reviews have become modern versions of the word-of-mouth recommendation, and prospective patients are increasingly consulting them before making decisions about their surgical care. The authors’ objectives were to (1) identify trends in the use of online reviews, and (2) important reasons for patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with aesthetic surgery. The authors selected breast augmentation as the primary procedure of interest. Methods: Reviews of the top 10 to 20 most reviewed plastic surgeons in each of six large metropolitan areas were obtained from Google, Yelp, and RealSelf. Reviews were assessed for predefined dimensions of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Results: A total of 1077 breast augmentation reviews were obtained. Ratings were distributed bimodally, with peaks at five stars and one star. The majority of reviews were positive (87.5 percent). Relative popularity of Google versus Yelp varied across geographic regions, and average rating varied by platform. Between 2011 and 2016, the number of online reviews for breast augmentation grew at an average rate of 42.6 percent per year. Aesthetic outcome was the most commonly cited dimension (69.8 percent of reviews), whereas cost was mentioned in only 7.8 percent of reviews. A substantial minority of negative Yelp (37 percent) and Google (9.4 percent) reviews were written by patients who did not actually undergo surgery. Free-text analysis of heterogeneous reviews (containing positive and negative attributes) classified dimensions as critical, redeemable, or protective. Conclusion: As the influence of online review platforms continues to grow, understanding drivers of positive and negative reviews may help surgeons improve patient satisfaction.