Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 31, 2025
Endoscopic Bilateral Nipple-sparing Mastectomy via a Single Axillary Incision with Immediate Pre-pectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
Published on: May 17, 2024
Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes Reporting in Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Literature Review
Sonali Biswas1, Alexandria Mullikin, Brett T Phillips
1From the Division of Plastic, Oral, and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Introduction:
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide essential information in reconstructive surgery, where interventions center on patients' functional and aesthetic goals. Although multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been validated for breast reconstruction since 2009, no studies have assessed recent frequency and consistency in use. This study aims to characterize recent trends in inclusion of PROs in recent breast reconstruction literature.
Methods:
Articles published between 2015 and 2021 pertaining to autologous and/or prosthetic breast reconstruction in Annals of Plastic Surgery and Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery were considered in a scoping review. Original breast reconstruction articles were reviewed for use of PROMs and characteristics of administration in accordance with PRISMA-Scr guidelines. Previously defined scoping review criteria were considered, including PROM used, timeline of collection, and topics addressed, with trends in frequency and consistency of usage assessed over the designated period.
Results:
Of the 877 articles reviewed and 232 articles included, 24.6% reported using any PROM. The majority used BREAST-Q (n = 42, 73.7%), with the remainder being institutional surveys or previously validated questionnaires. Patient-reported outcomes were most often collected retrospectively (n = 20, 64.9%) and postoperatively (n = 33, 57.9%). The average time point of postoperative survey administration was 16.03 months (SD, 19.185 months). χ2 Analysis revealed no significant association between the numbers of articles, including PROMs and the year (P = 0.1047).
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that only one-fourth of breast reconstruction articles report the use of PROMs with no interval increase over recent years. Patient-reported outcome measures were predominantly used retrospectively and postoperatively with notable variation in timing of administration. The findings highlight the need for improved frequency and consistency of PROM collection and reporting, as well as for further exploration into barriers and facilitators of PROM use.
