Table 4. Comparison of cosmetic satisfaction between implant-based and pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction.
| Cosmetic satisfaction | Implant-based reconstruction (n=30) | Pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction (n=30) | Mean difference (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cosmetic satisfaction score (0–100 scale) | 78.3±17.0 | 62.5±15.7 | 15.83 (7.36 to 24.31) | <0.001 |
| Likert scale categories | ||||
| 5 (extremely satisfied) | 9 (30.0) | 2 (6.7) | – | – |
| 4 (very satisfied) | 16 (53.3) | 11 (36.7) | – | – |
| 3 (satisfied) | 5 (16.7) | 17 (56.7) | – | – |
| 2 (not satisfied) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | – | – |
| 1 (extremely dissatisfied) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | – | – |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%). Cosmetic satisfaction scores were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale and transformed to a 0–100 scale for analysis, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Mean differences represent implant-based reconstruction minus pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction. A two-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. CI, confidence interval; TRAM, transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous.