Results of Absorbable Mesh Insertion and Patient Satisfaction in Breast-Conserving Surgery.
- Author:
Ei Young KWON
1
;
Yu Sung YANG
;
Eun Hye CHOI
;
Kyu Dam HAN
;
Young Sam PARK
;
Cheol Seung KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Breast neoplasms; Patient satisfaction; Polyglactin 910
- MeSH: Biopsy; Body Mass Index; Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Congenital Abnormalities; Drug Therapy; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Interviews as Topic; Jeollabuk-do; Mastectomy, Segmental*; Medical Records; Methods; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction*; Polyglactin 910; Protestantism; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Wound Infection
- From: Journal of Breast Disease 2017;5(2):46-50
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
- Abstract: PURPOSE: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a standard treatment for breast cancer. Occasionally, patients may be dissatisfied with the breast shape due to deformity after BCS. To ensure satisfactory cosmetic results, a procedure with absorbable mesh after BCS was introduced in 2005. The purpose of this study was to identify the safety and effectiveness of this procedure. METHODS: From November 2013 to December 2015, patients who underwent BCS for a malignant breast mass at Jeonju Presbyterian Medical Center were reviewed, and 63 patients were included in this study. Based on data collected from medical records and telephone interviews, the subjects were divided into two groups as follows and retrospectively compared and analyzed: BCS with absorbable mesh (n=31) and BCS without absorbable mesh (n=32). Patient data included age, body mass index, underlying disease, tumor location and size, specimen size, operative time, axillary dissection based on frozen biopsy results, postoperative wound infection, postoperative radiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, and follow-up period. To compare patient satisfaction between the two groups, a brief questionnaire consisting of four items was administered. RESULTS: Infection occurred in six patients (19.4%) in the absorbable mesh group and one (3.1%) in the BCS only group; however, the difference was not significant (p=0.053). Overall satisfaction, postoperative pain and postoperative motion limitation between the two groups were also not statistically significantly different. However, patients who underwent BCS with absorbable mesh insertion were better satisfied with the breast shape than those who underwent BCS without mesh from 1 year after operation (p=0.011). CONCLUSION: BCS with absorbable mesh is a simple and easy method to improve patient satisfaction for breast shape.
