Reshaping Our Understanding of Sensation and Pain Following Breast Reduction Surgery.

IF 1.5 Q3 SURGERY Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open Pub Date : 2025-01-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000006427
Katya Remy, Curtis L Cetrulo, Colby J Hyland, Riley Baker, Anna Reaman, Krishna Vyas, Lisa Gfrerer, William G Austen, Katherine H Carruthers
{"title":"Reshaping Our Understanding of Sensation and Pain Following Breast Reduction Surgery.","authors":"Katya Remy, Curtis L Cetrulo, Colby J Hyland, Riley Baker, Anna Reaman, Krishna Vyas, Lisa Gfrerer, William G Austen, Katherine H Carruthers","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000006427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study evaluated the sensory and breast pain outcomes in inferior versus superomedial pedicle breast reduction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty patients undergoing the inferior pedicle technique were matched to 20 patients undergoing the superomedial pedicle technique based on age, BMI, and resection weight. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Monofilament testing was performed on the nipple-areola complex (NAC) and surrounding breast. Patient-reported outcomes included nipple and breast sensation (5-point Likert scale), pain intensity (0-10), and the Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System Neuropathic Pain Quality scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the NAC, mean monofilament values and patient-reported sensation were significantly better in the inferior versus the superomedial pedicle group at 1 and 3 months postoperatively (<i>P</i> < 0.05) and comparable at 6 and 12 months (<i>P</i> > 0.05). At 12 months, 72.5% of patients reported complete (5 of 5) nipple sensation (77.5% inferior versus 67.5% superomedial, <i>P</i> > 0.05). At the breast, the mean monofilament values and patient-reported sensation were similar between pedicle groups throughout follow-up. At 12 months, 82.5% of the patients reported complete (5 of 5) breast sensation (85.0% inferior versus 80% superomedial, <i>P</i> > 0.05). Rates of postoperative breast pain were similar between groups throughout follow-up (<i>P</i> > 0.05). At 12 months, 25% of patients reported breast pain, with neuropathic qualities in 85% of cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The inferior pedicle may allow for earlier restoration of quantitative and patient-reported NAC sensation, but long-term sensation is comparable between techniques. A quarter of patients reported persistent breast pain regardless of the pedicle type.</p>","PeriodicalId":20149,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","volume":"13 1","pages":"e6427"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723695/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study evaluated the sensory and breast pain outcomes in inferior versus superomedial pedicle breast reduction.

Methods: Twenty patients undergoing the inferior pedicle technique were matched to 20 patients undergoing the superomedial pedicle technique based on age, BMI, and resection weight. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Monofilament testing was performed on the nipple-areola complex (NAC) and surrounding breast. Patient-reported outcomes included nipple and breast sensation (5-point Likert scale), pain intensity (0-10), and the Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System Neuropathic Pain Quality scale.

Results: At the NAC, mean monofilament values and patient-reported sensation were significantly better in the inferior versus the superomedial pedicle group at 1 and 3 months postoperatively (P < 0.05) and comparable at 6 and 12 months (P > 0.05). At 12 months, 72.5% of patients reported complete (5 of 5) nipple sensation (77.5% inferior versus 67.5% superomedial, P > 0.05). At the breast, the mean monofilament values and patient-reported sensation were similar between pedicle groups throughout follow-up. At 12 months, 82.5% of the patients reported complete (5 of 5) breast sensation (85.0% inferior versus 80% superomedial, P > 0.05). Rates of postoperative breast pain were similar between groups throughout follow-up (P > 0.05). At 12 months, 25% of patients reported breast pain, with neuropathic qualities in 85% of cases.

Conclusions: The inferior pedicle may allow for earlier restoration of quantitative and patient-reported NAC sensation, but long-term sensation is comparable between techniques. A quarter of patients reported persistent breast pain regardless of the pedicle type.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重塑我们对乳房缩小手术后感觉和疼痛的理解。
背景:本研究评估了下内侧椎弓根缩胸术与上内侧椎弓根缩胸术的感觉和乳房疼痛结果。方法:根据年龄、BMI和切除体重,将20例行下椎弓根技术的患者与20例行上内侧椎弓根技术的患者进行匹配。分别于术前、术后1、3、6、12个月对患者进行评估。对乳头-乳晕复合体(NAC)及周围乳房进行单丝检测。患者报告的结果包括乳头和乳房感觉(5分李克特量表)、疼痛强度(0-10分)和患者报告的结果测量信息系统神经性疼痛质量量表。结果:在NAC中,下椎弓根组术后1、3个月的平均单丝值和患者报告的感觉明显优于上内侧椎弓根组(P < 0.05), 6、12个月的差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。12个月时,72.5%的患者报告乳头感觉完全(5 / 5)(77.5%的下乳头对67.5%的上内侧乳头,P < 0.05)。在乳房,在随访期间,蒂组之间的平均单丝值和患者报告的感觉相似。在12个月时,82.5%的患者报告完全的乳房感觉(5 / 5)(85.0%的下侧对80%的上内侧,P < 0.05)。两组术后乳房疼痛发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。12个月时,25%的患者报告乳房疼痛,85%的病例伴有神经性症状。结论:下蒂可能允许早期定量和患者报告的NAC感觉的恢复,但长期感觉在技术之间是可比的。四分之一的患者报告持续性乳房疼痛,无论蒂类型如何。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
1584
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open is an open access, peer reviewed, international journal focusing on global plastic and reconstructive surgery.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open publishes on all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including basic science/experimental studies pertinent to the field and also clinical articles on such topics as: breast reconstruction, head and neck surgery, pediatric and craniofacial surgery, hand and microsurgery, wound healing, and cosmetic and aesthetic surgery. Clinical studies, experimental articles, ideas and innovations, and techniques and case reports are all welcome article types. Manuscript submission is open to all surgeons, researchers, and other health care providers world-wide who wish to communicate their research results on topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open, a complimentary journal to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provides an open access venue for the publication of those research studies sponsored by private and public funding agencies that require open access publication of study results. Its mission is to disseminate high quality, peer reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to the widest possible global audience, through an open access platform. As an open access journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open offers its content for free to any viewer. Authors of articles retain their copyright to the materials published. Additionally, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open provides rapid review and publication of accepted papers.
期刊最新文献
Multidetector-row Computed Tomography Analysis of the Radial Midpalmar Flap: A Retrospective Anatomical Study. Recent Advancements in Robotic-assisted Plastic Surgery Procedures: A Systematic Review. Reverse Fragility Index in Plastic Surgery Randomized Controlled Trials. Transtemporal Endoscopic Deep Plane Face Lift. Utilization of Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis in the United States From 2010 to 2019.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1