Analysis of patient satisfaction and donor-site morbidity after different types of breast reconstruction

Abstract

Background and Aims: Breast reconstruction has been shown to improve quality of life. However, factors involved in long-term patient satisfaction are largely unknown. Our aim was to evaluate patient satisfaction and donor-site morbidity in five types of breast reconstruction. Material and Methods: A prospectively collected database of all breast surgery patients at Hospital Rudolfstiftung, Vienna, Austria, was searched for five types of breast reconstruction (2000–2006): implant, latissimus dorsi-flap, latissimus dorsi-flap with implant, free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous-flap, and deep inferior epigastric perforator-flap. Patients were sent a study-specific questionnaire to assess satisfaction. Short-form 36-item health survey was used to analyze (quality of life), and complication data were retrieved from the database and assessed during a follow-up visit. Results: There were 257 patients identified, of whom, 126 responded to the survey (17 implant, 5 latissimus dorsi + implant, 64 latissimus dorsi, 22 transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous, and 18 deep inferior epigastric perforator reconstructions). No statistical differences were found in complication or reoperation rates. Deep inferior epigastric perforator–flap patients were significantly more satisfied compared to patients from the implant group ( p = 0.007). However, there was no significant difference regarding quality of life scores among the groups. After logistic regression analysis, only “impairment on daily life” showed to be independently correlated with patient satisfaction. This contrary to both operation type and complication rate which did not correlate with patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Our results indicate that operation type, complication rate, and revision rate did not independently correlate with patient satisfaction. Therefore, to further improve patient satisfaction, future research should be focused on other pro-operative factors, for example, patient education, expectations, and personality characteristics.