Table 3.
Satisfaction survey results
| Patient | Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgeon | |||||
|
Traditional breast conserving surgery (n = 41) |
Excellent | 12 | 2 | – | – |
| Good | 2 | 4 | – | – | |
| Fair | – | 2 | 5 | 3 | |
| Poor | – | – | 5 | 6 | |
|
Oxidized regenerated cellulose (n = 41) |
Excellent | 18 | 3 | – | – |
| Good | 7 | 5 | – | – | |
| Fair | – | 3 | – | – | |
| Poor | – | – | 1 | 4 | |
|
Gelatin sponge (n = 43) |
Excellent | 15 | 8 | – | – |
| Good | 8 | 3 | – | – | |
| Fair | 1 | 2 | 1 | – | |
| Poor | – | – | 2 | 3 |
TBCS, traditional breast conserving surgery; ORC, oxidized regenerated cellulose; GS, gelatin sponge
Satisfaction analysis: TBCS VS ORC (P = 0.024); TBCS VS GS (P = 0.038); ORC VS GS (P = 0.973) (Evaluation by surgeons). TBCS VS ORC (P = 0.005); TBCS VS GS (P = 0.014); ORC VS GS (P = 0.73) (Evaluation by patients)