Breast Oncoplastic Surgery (OS) has established itself as a safe procedure associated with the treatment of breast cancer, but the term is broad, encompassing procedures associated with breast-conserving surgeries (BCS), conservative mastectomies and fat grafting. Surgeons believe that OS is associated with an increase in quality of life (QOL), but the diversity of QOL questionnaires and therapeutic modalities makes it difficult to assess from the patient’s perspective. To answer this question, we performed a search for systematic reviews on QOL associated with different COM procedures, and in their absence, we selected case-control studies, discussing the main results. We observed that: (1) Patients undergoing BCS or breast reconstruction have improved QoL compared to those undergoing mastectomy; (2) In patients undergoing BCS, OS has not yet shown an improvement in QOL, a fact possibly influenced by patient selection bias; (3) In patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, the QoL results are superior when the reconstruction is performed with autologous flaps and when the areola is preserved; (4) Prepectoral implants improves QOL in relation to subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction; (5) ADM do not improves QOL; (6) In patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy, satisfaction is high with the indication, but the patient must be informed about the potential complications associated with the procedure; (7) Satisfaction is high after performing fat grafting. It is observed that, in general, OS increases QOL, and when evaluating the procedures, any preservation or repair, or the use of autologous tissues, increases QOL, justifying OS.

Objective: to evaluate symmetry after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for cancer. Methods: a prospective study of patients undergoing BCS. These patients were photographed using the same criteria of evaluation. The references points used were the nipple height difference (NH), the nipple-manubrium distances (NM), nipple-sternum distances (NS) and the angle between the intramammary fold and the nipple (nipple angle; NA). ImageJ software was used. Three breast symmetry models were evaluated: excellent/others (model 1), excellent-good/others (model 2) and others/poor (model 3). The ROC curve was used to select acceptable criteria for the evaluation of symmetry. Decision tree model analysis was performed. Results: a total of 274 women were evaluated. The BCCT.core result was excellent in 5.8% (16), good in 24.1% (66), fair in 46.4% (127) and poor in 23.7% (65). The difference in NH was associated with good breast area (0.837-0.846); acceptable differences were below 3.1 cm, while unacceptable values were greater than 6.4 cm. Differences in the NM were associated with average breast area (0.709-0.789); a difference in value of less than 4.5 cm was acceptable, while values greater than 6.3 cm were unacceptable. In the decision tree combined model, a good-excellent outcome for patients with differential (d) dNH = 1 (0 to 5.30 cm) and dNM ≠ 3 (<6.28 cm); and for a poor/poor result, values dNM = 3 (> 6.35). Conclusions: the results presented here are simple tools that can assist the surgeon for breast symmetry evaluation.

No abstract