Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background In the surgical treatment of breast cancer, the goal of surgeons is to continually create and improve minimally invasive surgical techniques to increase patients’ quality of life. Currently, routine breast-conserving surgery is often performed using two obvious incisions. Here, we compare the clinical efficacy and aesthetic outcomes of a novel technique using one incision, called ‘single-port insufflation endoscopic breast-conserving surgery’ (SIE-BCS), vs. conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Methods A total of 180 patients with stage I or stage II breast cancer participated in this study, of whom 63 underwent SIE-BCS and 117 underwent C-BCS. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the risk of local recurrence and metastasis. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated using the BREAST-Q scale. Results The mean operation time was significantly longer for SIE-BCS (194.9 ± 71.5 min) than for C-BCS (140.3 ± 56.9 min), but the mean incision length was significantly shorter for SIE-BCS than for C-BCS (3.4 ± 1.2 cm vs. 8.6 ± 2.3 cm). While both surgeries yielded similar BREAST-Q ratings for satisfaction with breasts and sexual well-being, SIE-BCS was associated with significantly better ratings for physical well-being (chest area) and psychological well-being. Additionally, SIE-BCS was associated with decreased rates of adverse effects of radiation. The preliminary analysis showed that SIE-BCS did not increase the risk of local recurrence or metastasis. Conclusion The novel single-port insufflation endoscopic assisted BCS technique is feasible, safe, and improves patients’ postoperative comfort and psychological well-being, as compared to the conventional technique.

Background: Breast augmentation is one of the most frequently performed plastic surgery procedures. Providing patients with realistic 3D simulations of breast augmentation outcomes is becoming increasingly common. Until recently, such programs were expensive and required significant equipment, training, and office space. New simple user-friendly programs have been developed, but to date there remains a paucity of objective evidence comparing these 3D simulations with post-operative outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the aesthetic similarity between a pre-operative 3D simulation generated using Arbrea breast simulation software and real post-operative outcomes, with a focus on patient satisfaction. Methods: The authors conducted a prospective study of patients requiring breast augmentation. Patients were asked to assess how realistic the simulation was compared to the one-year post-operative result using the authors’ grading scale for breast augmentation simulation assessment. Patient satisfaction with the simulations was assessed using a satisfaction visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied). Patient satisfaction with the surgical outcome was assessed using the BREAST-Q Augmentation Module. Results: All patients were satisfied with the simulations and with the attained breast volume, with a mean VAS score of 8.2 ± 1.2. The mean simulation time took 90 s on average. The differences between the pre-operative and one-year post-operative values of the three BREAST-Q assessments were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Three-dimensional simulation is becoming increasingly common in pre-operative planning for breast augmentation. The present study aimed to assess the degree of similarity of three-dimensional simulations generated using Arbrea Breast Software and found that the use of the software provided a very satisfying representation for patients undergoing breast augmentation. However, we recommend informing patients that only the volume simulation is extremely accurate. On the other hand, it is necessary to not guarantee an absolute correspondence regarding the breast shape between the simulation and the post-operative result.

Background A breast cancer diagnosis can threaten every aspect of a woman’s wellbeing, including her mental health. With the growing number of breast cancer survivors, studies addressing mental health in this population are of increasing importance now more than ever. Therefore, the current study investigated trends in emotional functioning and psychosocial wellbeing of breast cancer survivors, and the demographic and treatment characteristics that may influence these trends. Methods Prospectively collected data of women treated for breast cancer at the Erasmus MC were analyzed in this study using a cohort study design. Emotional functioning was measured using the EORTC-QLQ-C30, while psychosocial wellbeing was measured using the BREAST-Q. Type of surgery, age, family status and employment status of study participants were retrieved, and multilevel analyses were performed to identify trends in emotional functioning and psychosocial wellbeing and to determine the relationship between aforementioned characteristics and these outcomes. Results Three hundred thirty-four cancer survivors were analyzed. Psychosocial wellbeing declined, but emotional functioning showed a steady improvement over time. Women who underwent breast reconstruction showed a steeper increase in their emotional functioning, and women with no partner or children showed a marginal decline in psychosocial wellbeing between baseline and 12 months after surgery. Conclusions These findings can be utilized by healthcare teams to identify breast cancer patients at risk for emotional problems and to provide adequate psychological support to those women who need help dealing with their emotions and self-concept in order to optimize clinical treatment.

Background: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, but donor site morbidity, such as abdominal bulging, remains a concern. Rectus fascia plication is a recognized treatment for rectus abdominis diastasis, yet its role in DIEP closure is scarcely evaluated. This study investigates whether plication reduces abdominal morbidity and improves patient satisfaction. Methods: A multicenter retrospective case–control study was performed on women who underwent unilateral DIEP breast reconstruction between 2018 and 2024. Patients were allocated to the plication or control group according to operative notes. Outcomes included abdominal complications, postoperative bulging (clinically and photographically assessed), and patient-reported satisfaction using the BREAST-Q. Standardized postoperative photographs were also rated by blinded expert surgeons. Results: Sixty-two patients met the inclusion criteria: 25 with fascia plication and 37 without. Groups were comparable in demographics and surgical details, though diastasis was more prevalent in the plication group (4.1 cm vs. 0 cm, p < 0.0001). Plication did not increase early or late complications. Abdominal bulge occurred in 16.2% of controls and 0% of the plication group (p = 0.0727). Logistic regression confirmed a significant protective effect (OR = 0.095, 95% CI 0.001–0.87, p = 0.034). BREAST-Q “Physical well-being: abdomen” scores were higher with plication (35.7 ± 18.0 vs. 23.0 ± 17.2, p = 0.0316), which was confirmed by multivariate analysis. Expert photographic assessments showed no significant differences. Conclusions: Rectus fascia plication during DIEP flap breast reconstruction is safe, improves abdominal well-being, and reduces postoperative bulging, especially in patients with preoperative diastasis. This additional step may represent a simple and effective strategy to enhance donor site outcomes.