Survey assessment of physical function following postmastectomy breast reconstruction

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 121, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1108-1115

  Brockhurst, Alan C ^a   Alderman, Amy K ^a   Lowery, Julie C ^a   Davis, Jennifer A ^a   Wilkins, Edwin G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST ENDOPROSTHESIS; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; PHYSICAL CAPACITY; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 36; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TRANSVERSE RECTUS ABDOMINIS MUSCULOCUTANEOUS FLAP; WELLBEING; METHODOLOGY; PLASTIC SURGERY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; MASTECTOMY; SURGICAL FLAPS;

EID: 42949151373     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000302455.14889.d5     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Morrow, M., White, J., Moughan, J., et al. Factors predicting the use of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 19: 2254, 2001.
2. Bransfield, D. D. Breast cancer and sexual functioning: A review of the literature and implications for future research. Int. J. Psychiatry Med. 12: 197, 1982.
3. Silberfarb, P. M., Maurer, L. H., and Crouthamel, C. S. Psychosocial aspects of neoplastic disease: I. Functional status of breast cancer patients during different treatment regimens. Am. J. Psychiatry 137: 450, 1980.
4. Asken, M. J. Psychoemotional aspects of mastectomy: A review of recent literature. Am. J. Psychiatry 132: 56, 1975.
5. Schain, W. S. Breast reconstruction: Update of psychosocial and pragmatic concerns. Cancer 68 (5 Suppl.): 1170, 1991.
6. Rowland, J. H., Holland, J. C., Chaglassian, T., et al. Psychological response to breast reconstruction: Expectations for and impact on postmastectomy functioning. Psychosomatics 32: 241, 1993.
7. Teimourian, B., and Adham, M. N. Survey of patient's responses to breast reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 9: 321, 1982.
8. Wilkins, E. G., Cederna, P. S., Lowery, J., et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: One-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 106: 1014, 2000.
9. National Plastic Surgery Statistics. Available at: www.plasticsurgery. org.
10. Cederna, P. S., Yates, W. R., Chang, P., et al. Postmastectomy reconstruction: Comparative analysis of the psychosocial, functional, and cosmetic effects of transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap versus breast implant reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 35: 458, 1995.
11. Alderman, A. K., Wilkins, E. G., Lowery, J. C., et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 106: 769, 2000.
12. Nahabedian, M. Y., Dooley, W., Singh, N., et al. Contour abnormalities of the abdomen after breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps: The role of muscle preservation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 109: 91, 2002.
13. Lejour, M., and Dome, M. Abdominal wall function after rectus abdominis transfer. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 87: 1054, 1991.
14. Suominen, S., Asko-Seljavaara, S., Von Smitten, K., et al. Sequelae in the abdominal wall after pedicled or free TRAM flap surgery. Ann. Plast. Surg. 36: 629, 1996.
15. Kind, G. M., Rademaker, A. W., and Mustoe, T. A. Abdominal wall recovery following TRAM flap: A functional outcome study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 99: 417, 1997.
16. Alderman, A. K., Kuzon, W. M., and Wilkins, E. G. A two year prospective analysis of trunk function in TRAM breast reconstructions. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 117: 2131, 2006.
17. Blondeel, N., Vanderstraeten, G. G., Monstrey, S. J., et al. The donor site morbidity of free DIEP flaps and free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 50: 322, 1997.
18. Simon, A. M., Bouwense, C. L., Carrie, L., et al. Comparison of unipedicled and bipedicled TRAM flap breast reconstructions: Assessment of physical function and patient satisfaction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 113: 136, 2004.
19. Patrick, D. L., and Deyo, R. A. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med. Care 27 (3 Suppl.): 217, 1989.
20. Stewart, A. L., and Ware, J. E. (Eds.) The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1992.
21. Ware, J. E., and Sherbourne, C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med. Care 30: 473, 1992.
22. Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., and Ware, J. E. The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med. Care 26: 724, 1988.
23. Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol. 11: 570, 1993.
24. Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Bonomi, A., et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) scales: Incorporating disease specificity and subjectivity into quality of life (QOL) assessment. Proc. Annu. Meet. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 9: A1190, 1990.
25. Dulin, W. A., Avila, R. A., Verheyden, C. N., et al. Evaluation of abdominal wall strength after TRAM flap surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 113: 1662, 2004.
26. Futter, C. M., Webster, M. H., Hagen, S., et al. A retrospective comparison of abdominal muscle strength following breast reconstruction with a free TRAM or DIEP flap. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 53: 578, 2000.
27. Bajaj, A. K., Chevray, P. M., and Chang, D. W. Comparison of donor site complications and functional outcomes in free muscle-sparing TRAM flap and free DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 117: 737, 2006.