Table 2.

Comparative Studies Evaluating PROs for DIEP versus IBR Reconstruction

Reference Study, Location, Design	No. Pts (DIEP)	No. Pts (IBR)	Mean F/u (mo) with SD Where Reported	PROs
Matros et al,15 USA, cohort*	103	172	NA	BREAST-Q scores consistently higher for DIEP, 1–8 y postoperatively† Breast QALY: 19.5 cw 17.7†
Tønseth et al,31 Norway, Cohort‡	29	21	30±12 cw 33.6±12	SF-36 scores: Physical functioning 85.0 cw 89.0 (NS); role physical 77.5 cw 78.7 (NS); bodily pain 72.9 cw 74.6 (NS); general health 78.0 cw 80.4 (NS); vitality 60.0 cw 63.8 (NS); social functioning 87.3 cw 90.0 (NS); role emotional 75.6 cw 69.8 (NS); mental health 79.6 cw 77.2 (NS) Study-specific questionnaire scores: Satisfied with appearance of breast: Yes: 24 cw 5; neither yes/no: 3 cw 8; no: 2 cw 8§ (P < 0.0005) Social relationship: Improved: 5 cw 0; unchanged: 24 cw 20; worse: o cw 1¶ (P = 0.02) Sad about body image: Yes: 3 cw 5; neither yes/no: 1 cw 6; no: 25 cw 10¶ (P = 0.01) Study-specific questions concerning self image (NS), social and intimate relationship (NS), general health (NS), and general satisfaction (NS) Visual Analog Scale: Breast shape: 7.9±2.2 cw 5.1±2.5§ (P < 0.0005) Breast symmetry: 7.6±2.1 cw 6.0±2.9¶ (P = 0.023) Breast volume: 7.7±2.1 cw 5.4±2.7§ (P = 0.006) Breast position: 8.8±1.3 cw 6.8±2.6§ (P = 0.003) Breast consistency: 5.6±2.9 cw 3.8±3.0§ (P = 0.008)

*Retrospective.

†Statistical significance not reported.

‡Prospective.

§Statistically significant (P < 0.01).

¶Statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Cw, compared with (assessing the RoB); QALY, Quality-Adjusted Life Year; NA, not available; NS, no significance.