Table 3.
Objective and subjective aesthetic evaluation of all patients who underwent dual-layer rotation (DLR) and subjective aesthetic evaluation of breasts according to the tumor location and specimen weight
| Mean objective evaluations: BCCT.core (range)a | Mean subjective evaluations per patient: n (range)a | |
|---|---|---|
| Patients (n = 37)b | 3.2 (1–4) | 3.4 (2–4) |
| Unilateral surgery (n = 7 | 2.0 (1–3) | 2.9 (2–4) |
| Bilateral surgery (n = 30) | 3.4 (2–4) | 3.5 (2–4) |
| DLR technique, breasts (n = 41) | Tumor location | Mean subjective evaluations per breast: n (range) | Mean specimen weight: g (range) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall: n (%) | 3.4 (2–4) | 134 (36–300) | |
| 7 (17) | Central | 3.4 (3–4) | 89 (36–210) |
| 13 (31) | Upper inner | 3.2 (2–4) | 128 (49–234) |
| 2 (5) | Lower inner | 3.5 (3–4) | 162 (87–236) |
| 8 (20) | Upper outer | 3.5 (2–4) | 104 (49–169) |
| 1 (2) | Lower outer | 4 (4) | 80 |
| 10 (24) | Multicentral | 3.4 (2–4) | 195 (125–300) |
BCCT.core Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment.cosmetic results
aAesthetic evaluations were converted to a scale: 4 (excellent), 3 (good), 2 (fair), 1 (poor)
bFollow-up photographs were not available for three patients, two of whom underwent bilateral DLR