Advertisement

Analyzing Patient Preference for Nipple-Areola Complex Reconstruction Using Utility Outcome Studies

  • Ahmed M. S. Ibrahim
  • Frank H. Lau
  • Hani H. Sinno
  • Bernard T. Lee
  • Samuel J. Lin
Chapter

Abstract

Restoration of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) is a fundamental component of the reconstructive process. Despite its reportedly important effect on a patient’s self-esteem, not all women opt to undergo this procedure. There is a paucity of evidence in the literature looking at patient preferences for NAC reconstruction. Utility outcome studies permit the objective standardization of the health state preference of a health condition or disease state. A sample of the general population and medical students at McGill University were recruited to establish the utility scores (standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analogue scale (VAS)) of living with a NAC deformity. The current data indicates that the general population would be prepared to risk an 8% chance of death in order to obtain perfect health and a willingness to sacrifice 2.8 years of life when choosing to undergo NAC reconstruction. In this chapter, the use of utility outcome studies for analyzing patient preferences for NAC reconstruction based on a previously published study by the authors is discussed.

References

  1. 1.
    Jenkins M, Patel S. Assessment of risk factors associated with nipple reconstruction. Breast J. 2016;22:377–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibrahim AM, Sinno HH, Izadpanah A, et al. Nipple-areolar complex reconstruction following postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative utility assessment study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3:e380.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Losken A, Duggal CS, Desai KA, McCullough MC, Gruszynski MA, Carlson GW. Time to completion of nipple reconstruction: what factors are involved? Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:530–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, de Blacam C, et al. The impact of nipple reconstruction on patient satisfaction in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:389–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craig ES, Walker ME, Salomon J, Fusi S. Immediate nipple reconstruction utilizing the DIEP flap in areolasparing mastectomy. Microsurgery. 2013;33:125–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sisti A, Grimaldi L, Tassinari J, et al. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction techniques: a literature review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:441–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang JD, Ryu JY, Ryu DW, et al. Our experiences in nipple reconstruction using the hammond flap. Arch Plast Surg. 2014;41(5):550.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wellisch DK, Schain WS, Noone RB, Little JW 3rd. The psychological contribution of nipple addition in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;80:699–704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shestak KC, Nguyen TD. The double opposing periareola flap: a novel concept for nipple-areola reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:473–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiss J, Herman O, Rosenberg L, Shafir R. The S nipple-areola reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;83:904–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang WH. Nipple reconstruction with a T flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73:140–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kroll SS. Nipple reconstruction with the double-opposing tab flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:511–4; discussion 5–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eo S, Kim SS, Da Lio AL. Nipple reconstruction with C-v flap using dermofat graft. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;58:137–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoeller T, Schubert HM, Pulzl P, Wechselberger G. Nipple reconstruction using a modified arrow flap technique. Breast. 2006;15:762–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Germano D, De Biasio F, Piedimonte A, Parodi PC. Nipple reconstruction using the fleur-de-lis flap technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2006;30:399–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gamboa-Bobadilla GM. Nipple reconstruction: the top hat technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54:243–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rubino C, Dessy LA, Posadinu A. A modified technique for nipple reconstruction: the ‘arrow flap’. Br J Plast Surg. 2003;56:247–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goh SC, Martin NA, Pandya AN, Cutress RI. Patient satisfaction following nipple-areolar complex reconstruction and tattooing. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(3):360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jabor MA, Shayani P, Collins DR Jr, Karas T, Cohen BE. Nipple-areola reconstruction: satisfaction and clinical determinants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:457–63; discussion 64–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Asplund O. Nipple and areola reconstruction. A study in 79 mastectomized women. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;17:233–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andrade WN, Baxter N, Semple JL. Clinical determinants of patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:46–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sinno H, Dionisopoulos T, Slavin SA, Ibrahim AM, Chung KC, Lin SJ. The utility of outcome studies in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2014;2:e189.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Kneeland TS, et al. Measuring health state preferences in women with breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:280–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liem YS, Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Preference-based quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health. 2008;11:733–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lara AM, Wakholi BN, Kasirye A, et al. Utility assessment of HIV/AIDS-related health states in HIV-infected Ugandans. AIDS. 2008;22(Suppl 1):S123–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coffey JT, Brandle M, Zhou H, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:2238–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith KJ, Roberts MS. Quality-of-life utility values for erectile function and sildenafil treatment. Clin Drug Investig. 2005;25:99–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmidlin M, Fritsch K, Matthews F, Thurnheer R, Senn O, Bloch KE. Utility indices in patients with the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Respiration. 2010;79:200–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sinno H, Izadpanah A, Thibaudeau S, et al. The impact of living with a functional and aesthetic nasal deformity after primary rhinoplasty: a utility outcomes score assessment. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69(4):431.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sinno H, Thibaudeau S, Izadpanah A, et al. Utility outcome scores for unilateral facial paralysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:435–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sinno H, Thibaudeau S, Tahiri Y, et al. Utility assessment of body contouring after massive weight loss. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:724–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sinno HH, Ibrahim AM, Izadpanah A, et al. Utility outcome assessment of the aging neck following massive weight loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147:26–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sinno HH, Thibaudeau S, Duggal A, Lessard L. Utility scores for facial disfigurement requiring facial transplantation [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:443–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5:559–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:315–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL. An Internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:370–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sinno H, Izadpanah A, Tahiri Y, et al. The impact of living with severe lower extremity lymphedema: a utility outcomes score assessment. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73:210–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sinno H, Izadpanah A, Vorstenbosch J, et al. Living with a unilateral mastectomy defect: a utility assessment and outcomes study. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2014;30:313–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ibrahim AM, Sinno HH, Izadpanah A, et al. Mastopexy for breast ptosis: utility outcomes of population preferences. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2015;23:103–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE. Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ. 2006;15:527–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making. 1990;10:58–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC Jr, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Williams B. Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:509–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ES H, Pusic AL, Waljee JF, et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship Period. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1–8.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Kim M, Davis JA. Determinants of patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:769–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saulis AS, Mustoe TA, Fine NA. A retrospective analysis of patient satisfaction with immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction: comparison of three common procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:1669–76; discussion 77–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T, et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1585–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Craft RO, Colakoglu S, Curtis MS, et al. Patient satisfaction in unilateral and bilateral breast reconstruction [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1417–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Didier F, Arnaboldi P, Gandini S, et al. Why do women accept to undergo a nipple sparing mastectomy or to reconstruct the nipple areola complex when nipple sparing mastectomy is not possible? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132:1177–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ibrahim AM, Sinno HH, Izadpanah A, et al. Population preferences of undergoing brachioplasty for arm laxity. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73(Suppl 2):S149–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Izadpanah A, Sinno H, Vorstenbosch J, Lee BT, Lin SJ. Thigh laxity after massive weight loss: a utilities outcomes assessment. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;71:304–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sinno H, Izadpanah A, Thibaudeau S, Christodoulou G, Lin SJ, Dionisopoulos T. An objective assessment of the perceived quality of life of living with bilateral mastectomy defect. Breast. 2013;22:168–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:716–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Barker JH, Furr A, Cunningham M, et al. Investigation of risk acceptance in facial transplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:663–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed M. S. Ibrahim
    • 1
  • Frank H. Lau
    • 1
  • Hani H. Sinno
    • 2
  • Bernard T. Lee
    • 3
  • Samuel J. Lin
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryLouisiana State University Health Sciences CenterNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Division of Plastic SurgeryMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations