Purpose: This research aimed to explore factors associated with patient-reported breast and abdominal scar quality after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction (BR). Material and Methods: This study was designed as a descriptive cross-sectional survey in which women after DIEP flap BR were invited to complete an online survey on breast and abdominal scarring. The online survey was distributed in the Netherlands in several ways in order to reach a diverse population of women. Outcomes were assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Additional items were assessed with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: A total of 248 women completed the survey. There was a statistically significant worse POSAS scar appraisal for the abdominal scar compared with the breast scar. The vast majority of women reported high scores on at least one scar characteristic of their breast scar or ab- dominal scar. Overall, color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity scored higher than pain and itching. Women were only moderately positive about the size, noticeability, location, and the information provided regarding scarring. Conclusion: It is crucial to address the inevitability of scars in patient education before a DIEP flap BR, with a particular focus on the abdominal scar, as women experience abdominal scars significantly worse than their breast scars. Providing more information on the experience of other women and the expected appearance will contribute to having realistic expectations while allowing them to make well-informed decisions.
Background: Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction leads to large scars in the breast and abdominal region. Common symptoms related to abdominal scarring include changes in color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity of the skin. The aim of this study was to examine whether microneedling improves the abdominal scar quality after DIEP-flap breast reconstruction. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled within subject comparison design (N = 30) was used to study the effect of microneedling treatments on the abdominal scar, versus no treatment. Three electrically powered microneedling sessions were performed every 4 weeks on one side of the abdominal scar. Abdominal scar assessment was performed at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Treated and untreated sides were compared using a t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test in case the data were not normally distributed. Results: Twenty-seven women completed the study. Microneedling treatment led to lower POSAS scores compared with the untreated scar side after the 3- and 9-month follow-up. At the 9-month follow-up, the POSAS total score (Mdn = 17, interquartile range = 18.3 versus Mdn = 21.4, interquartile range = 17.5) was statistically lower for the treated side compared with the untreated side, implying a better-appraised scar quality. The observer POSAS total score was statistically lower for the treated side compared with the untreated side. Conclusions: Based on patient and observer ratings, overall abdominal scars after DIEP-flap surgery improve significantly after microneedling treatment. Scar symptoms reduce faster under the influence of microneedling treatment compared with no treatment.
LINK
Breast cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer that affects women worldwide, posing a significant burden on public health. While advancements in early detection and improved treatments have led to a remarkable 90% five-year survival rate and an 83% ten-year survival rate, this has also resulted in more prophylactic mastectomies being performed. Despite advancements in breast-conserving techniques, immunotherapy, and hormone therapy, many women still undergo mastectomies as part of their cancer treatment. In all cases, this results in scarring, and additional side effects from treatment modalities may arise. The loss of a breast can profoundly impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although HRQoL has improved greatly during the recent years, systematic and local therapy having side effects is not uncommon, and this needs more attention.
