Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background Although deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction is the most widely used technique for autologous breast reconstruction, this technique leads to large scars in visible areas on breast and abdomen. So far, limited studies have thoroughly addressed the impact of breast and abdominal scars on satisfaction and Health-related Quality of Life (HR-QoL). Objectives This research aimed to determine whether women with no/minor scar symptoms after undergoing DIEP-flap breast reconstruction differ in satisfaction and perceived HR-QoL from women with symptomatic scars. Materials and Methods In this cross-sectional survey study, women who had previously undergone DIEP-flap breast reconstruction completed an online survey. Patient-reported scar quality was assessed with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), and satisfaction and HR-QoL with BREAST-Q. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare BREAST-Q scores between women with no/minor scar symptoms (POSAS overall opinion score 1–3) and women with symptomatic scars (POSAS overall opinion score 4–10). Results A total of 248 women completed the survey. Women with scar symptoms had significantly worse BREAST-Q scores on ‘Satisfaction with breasts,’ ‘Physical well-being,’ ‘Psychosocial well-being’ and, ‘Sexual well-being’ compared to women with no/minor scar symptoms ( p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion After DIEP-flap breast reconstructions, women with symptomatic breast and abdominal scars had a clinically relevant and statistically significant lower degree of satisfaction and HR-QoL compared to women who had no/minor scar symptoms. We therefore recommend to explicitly and repeatedly address inevitability of visible scars after DIEP-flap breast reconstruction, aiming to improve preoperative patient selection and post-operative expectation management. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Everaars et al. (Tue,) studied this question.