Comparison of breast cancer patients who underwent partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (M + I) regarding quality of life (QOL), cosmetic outcome and survival rates

Abstract

Purpose: The latissimus dorsi muscle has long been used in breast cancer (BC) patients for reconstruction. This study aimed to compare early stage BC patients who had partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) and subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (MI) with respect to quality of life (QoL), cosmetic outcome (CO), and survival rates. Patients and methods: The data of patients who underwent PM + MLDF (Group 1) and M + I (Group 2) between January 2010 and January 2018 were evaluated. Both groups were compared in terms of demographics, clinical and pathological characteristics, surgical morbidity, survival, quality of life, and cosmetic results. The EORTC-QLQ C30 and EORTC-QLO BR23 questionnaires and the Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) Cosmetic Evaluation Scale were used to assess the quality of life and the cosmetic outcome, respectively.

Long-term oncologic safety of immediate reconstructive surgery in patients with invasive breast cancer: a retrospective matched-cohort study

“…Vahit [ 37 ] show that the patients who underwent partial mastectomy (PM) with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) reconstruction had a significantly superior cosmetic outcome and a better regarding quality of life as compared to the patients who had a subcutaneous mastectomy with implant (M + I) reconstruction. Despite the advances and developments in BCS, a recent trend towards patient’s preference for TM or IR has emerged in some countries [ 38 ].…”

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications Following Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Biological Matrix-Assisted Direct-to-Implant and Latissimus Dorsi Flap

“…Besides, patients who underwent autologous LDF reconstruction also expressed higher sexual well-being at 69.65 ± 24.64 vs. 50.95 ± 26.47 (p = 0.016). And patients with MLDF reconstruction also show better sexual enjoyment compared to patients with DTI reconstruction in previous studies (25). Thus, compared with the SIS matrixassisted DTI reconstruction, autologous LDF reconstruction produces superior PROs.…”

“…MLDF reconstruction provides a cosmetically successful breast reconstruction for patients with a large tumor but a large breast volume. The possibility to fill the tumor cavity by using MLDF in selected patients enables this intervention to be a serious alternative to subcutaneous mastectomy with LDF (25), and few studies compare these two different LDF breast reconstructions. Thus, we directly compare PROs and complications of LDF reconstruction and MLDF reconstruction in our study.…”

“…Subcutaneous mastectomy with implant usually causes asymmetries and required additional cosmetic approaches (25). However, with the introduction of the biological matrix in the field of breast reconstruction in 2005, the use of biological matrix or ADM makes DTI breast reconstruction feasible and lead to improved aesthetic results by creating a more natural-looking breast (26,27).…”

“…Due to the similar outcomes between LDF reconstruction group and MLDF reconstruction group, we compare the PROs and complications of SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction to the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group. Biological matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction is a single-stage approach that can be performed immediately after mastectomy avoiding further surgery (25,28). Patients who underwent SIS matrixassisted DTI reconstruction have a lower average body mass index compared with autologous LDF reconstruction (21.73 ± 2.20 vs. 24.08 ± 5.28, p = 0.002) and smaller tumor size (2.53 ± 1.24 vs. 3.00 ± 1.82, p = 0.022), which is measured by postoperative pathology.…”