Skip to main content
. 2017 Oct 18;152(10):944–950. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1716

Table 2. Unadjusted and Adjusted Difference Scores of BREAST-Q PROs.

BREAST-Q Survey Cohort Unadjusted Scores, Mean (SD) Adjusted Mean Difference (95% CI)a
Baseline 1 y Postoperative 2 y Postoperative 1 y Postoperative P Value 2 y Postoperative P Value
Satisfaction with breast Fat grafted 58.7 (21.5) 60.1 (16.7) 65.6 (17.1) −4.74 (−8.21 to −1.28) .008 −0.68 (−4.42 to 3.06) .72
No fat graft 59.2 (22.5) 66.1 (17.2) 66.0 (18.3)
Psychosocial well-being Fat grafted 68.4 (18.7) 67.2 (19.3) 73.2 (19.2) −3.87 (−7.33 to −0.40) .03 −0.59 (−3.92 to 2.74) .73
No fat graft 68.8 (18.5) 73.5 (19.2) 75.3 (19.1)
Physical well-being Fat grafted 77.2 (16.0) 72.5 (13.5) 74.8 (15.2) −1.23 (−3.71 to 1.25) .33 −0.50 (−3.36 to 2.36) .73
No fat graft 78.4 (14.7) 76.2 (14.9) 76.8 (14.9)
Sexual well-being Fat grafted 55.7 (20.3) 48.0 (20.5) 52.8 (20.9) −5.59 (−9.70 to −1.47) .008 −2.94 (−7.01 to 1.12) .15
No fat graft 54.4 (20.9) 54.7 (21.0) 55.4 (21.9)
a

Fat-grafted and non–fat-grafted differences based on mixed-effects regression models with each PRO measure at 1 or 2 years postoperatively as the dependent variable. Each model included an indicator for fat grafting between years 1 and 2 as the primary predictor, and included as covariates baseline PRO, age, body mass index, procedure type, laterality, indication for mastectomy, timing of reconstruction, radiotherapy, smoking history, race, ethnicity, fat grafting before year 1 PRO measures, concurrent revision procedure, cancer recurrence, and prior complication. Also included are random intercepts for study sites (hospitals) and an interaction variable between fat grafting and concurrent revision procedures. Analyses were performed and combined using 10 imputed data sets.