Referral Patterns for Endocrine Surgical Disease

ObjectiveReferrals between physician specialties are common practice, and clear patterns develop. The increasing availability of high-volume endocrine surgery subspecialists with better outcomes may change these patterns. This study aimed to determine what factors influence endocrinologists’ referral patterns for the surgical treatment of endocrine disease.MethodsA national, cross-sectional, voluntary survey of members of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists examined physician demographics, physician’s opinions on referral to endocrine surgery, preferred surgeon specialty, knowledge about surgeon characteristics, and how these factors influenced which surgeons they referred patients, as well as what changes in these factors would alter their referral patterns.ResultsThe survey response rate was 15% (73/500), and 97% were endocrinologists. On average, 0 to 5 patients/ week were referred for surgery. Most respondents (91.8%) felt that endocrinologists should decide which surgeon to refer. General surgery was the preferred surgeon specialty (43.7%), and endocrine surgery was the preferred subspecialty (70.8%). The factors most often cited as very important in referral to a surgeon included surgeon outcome/ complications (71%), familiarity with surgeon (65%), surgeon’s communication with referring physician (61%), and surgeon volume (59%). The factors most often cited as likely to change physician referral patterns included patient satisfaction (62%), complication rates (57%), surgeon outcomes (54%), and surgeon volume (50%). The factors most often cited as unlikely to change referral patterns included new surgeon availability (70%) and hospital/surgeon advertising (58%).ConclusionReferring physicians want experienced endocrine surgeons with high operative volumes and good outcomes whom they are familiar with. The promotion of referral to high-volume surgeons requires communication, good outcomes, and satisfied patients. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:571-575)     

Cancer genetics evaluation: barriers to and improvements for referral

Despite the availability of cancer susceptibility testing, little information exists regarding physicians' selection and referral of eligible patients. This study provides insight into whom, why, and when physicians refer for cancer genetics evaluation, as well as their comfort level within this role. Eighty-two physicians (51 primary care, 15 gynecology, 11 surgery and 5 oncology) completed a survey (response rate: 34%) regarding cancer genetics referral practices. Of these, 59% reported an awareness of the hospital's cancer genetics program. Program awareness was greater among oncologists, surgeons, and gynecologists than among primary care physicians (p < 0.0001). Patients were referred for enhanced risk assessment (88%), improved medical management (85%), and concern for family members (83%). Patient eligibility was based on family cancer history (96%), patient cancer history (83%), and patient request (73%). Patients were not referred mainly due to patient disinterest (54%) or physician concern about either insurance coverage (44%) or insurance discrimination (31%). Primary care physicians were less comfortable with identifying patients for referral (p < 0.001) and with discussing genetics (p < 0.002) than specialists. The largest barriers to referral were lack of program awareness and limited knowledge regarding patient eligibility, improved insurance coverage, and antidiscrimination legislation. Physician-targeted marketing and education may improve the referral process.     

The role of the plastic surgeon in the management of surgical infection.

At our Medical Center, our reconstructive service has actively sought referrals of acute and chronic infections by declaring an interest in undertaking the integrated management and reconstruction of these cases. The practices of the two senior surgeons were reviewed for three academic years (1992 to 1995). Cases of surgical infection were analyzed as to site, ablative procedures, and reconstructive procedures. In total, 139 patients with 147 infections were identified. Sites of infection included head and neck (9.5 percent), trunk and pelvis (39.5 percent), upper extremity (22 percent), and lower extremity (29 percent). One-hundred thirty-one ablative procedures were done on this group, as were 126 reconstructive procedures, including 17 fasciocutaneous flaps, 26 pedicled muscle flaps, and 28 microsurgical flaps. With a mean follow-up of 14 months, 92 percent of these patients had resolution of infection. The 8 percent failure group included recurrences, amputation, and death. This series demonstrates that a plastic surgery service can attract a diverse population of surgical infections and manage them successfully with ablation and a wide variety of reconstructive procedures. The coordination of ablation and reconstruction may be optimally performed by the plastic surgeon.     

The integral role of the plastic surgeon at a level I trauma center

The role of plastic surgery in urban level I trauma centers in the United States has been largely undefined, despite the undeniable historical involvement of plastic surgery in reconstruction of posttraumatic defects. To explore and define this role, case data were prospectively collected during a 29-month period following initiation of a full-time plastic surgery position at an established urban level I trauma center. Referring and/or interacting surgical service, anatomical area of interest, and procedure data were tabulated. A total of 1009 operative reports comprising 1104 procedures were recorded. The most common interacting surgical services were orthopedics and general/trauma surgery; however, interaction occurred with a total of 10 surgical specialties. The upper extremity was the most common anatomical area operated on followed by head and neck, lower extremity, trunk, urogenital, and breast. A wide variety of procedures were performed in each anatomical area, demonstrating the broad scope of reconstructive surgery practiced in a trauma setting. Three hundred and twenty-four procedures involved expertise in microsurgery, flaps, and burn or frostbite care. Additional procedures commonly performed demonstrated considerable overlap with other fields of surgical specialization. This overlap in skills proved advantageous in distribution of facial trauma call and hand surgery coverage. Data presented in this study reinforce the idea that plastic surgery is a specialty defined by concept rather than anatomical area, and also demonstrate a significant role for plastic surgeons in a level I trauma center.     

Reconstructive surgery for immunosuppressed organ-transplant recipients

Prolonged vascularized organ allograft survival and an improved quality of life are now possible for many transplant recipients. These advances are due largely to greater understanding of the immune response, the development of potent immunosuppressive agents (cyclosporin A), and improved surgical techniques. Thus more of these patients may require surgical procedures related or unrelated to their original operation, and the plastic surgeon, among other specialists, should be aware of the special problems of the immunocompromised transplant recipient who needs to undergo reconstructive surgery. We report our experience with 15 kidney, heart, and liver transplant recipients who required reconstructive surgery for a variety of conditions. The combined team approach by reconstructive and transplant surgeons is described, as well as the perioperative drug protocol and the special problems that immunosuppressed transplant recipients present. We conclude that these patients can successfully undergo major reconstructive procedures as long as the plastic surgeon not only performs technically flawless surgery, but also familiarizes himself or herself with the special problems of the immunosuppressed host, including the ever-present risk of sepsis and delayed and impaired wound healing, the potential for acute Addisonian crisis, and the possibility of multiple complicating comorbid conditions.     

After plastic surgery: adolescent-reported appearance ratings and appearance-related burdens in patient and general population groups.

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of appearance-related surgery on psychosocial functioning during adolescence. To this end, changes in bodily attitudes and appearance-related burdens in adolescents undergoing corrective (for aesthetic deformities) and reconstructive (for congenital or acquired deformities) surgery were compared with those in a general population sample.A group of 184 adolescent plastic surgery patients (corrective, n = 100; reconstructive, n = 84), and a comparison group of 83 adolescents at random selected from three municipalities (corrective, n = 67; reconstructive, n = 16), aged 12 to 22 years, were studied at two time points with a 6-month interval. The plastic surgical patients were studied presurgically and postsurgically. Using fully structured telephone interviews and postal questionnaires, adolescents' ratings of their appearance, bodily satisfaction and attitudes, and appearance-related burdens were obtained.All patients reported a significant decrease in burdens after surgery compared with the comparison group, indicating a much more prominent improvement in the patient sample compared with the developmental changes that may be expected to occur in adolescence. The corrective patient group reported least burdens after the operation. More specifically, the "breasts" group benefited most from the operation, indicating that breast corrections are rewarding interventions.The findings of this study imply that adolescents can be regarded as good candidates for plastic surgery. They gain bodily satisfaction, and they are relieved of many appearance-related burdens. Physical, social, and psychological burdens related to appearance satisfaction improve considerably in both corrective and reconstructive adolescent patients.     

Managed care's attempts to capture aesthetic surgery

Managed care organizations recently have attempted to add aesthetic surgery to their line of available services. To better understand the challenges posed by these actions, all members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery were surveyed about managed care overtures to aesthetic plastic surgeons, their responses, and the likely responses of their patients. The goal was to examine both the supplier and consumer ends of the aesthetic surgery market to determine the likely effects of managed care's attempts to capture aesthetic surgery. A total of 632 plastic surgeons returned the surveys (response rate, 54.5 percent). Twenty-two percent reported being approached by managed care organizations about joining a panel of aesthetic surgeons. Approximately one-quarter of the plastic surgeons said they would participate in aesthetic surgery panels developed by managed care organizations. Characteristics significantly associated with willingness to participate were solo practice structure, a low percentage of practice revenues from aesthetic surgery, and a very competitive practice environment. Plastic surgeons believed that their colleagues would be even more willing to acquiesce to managed care aesthetic surgery; more than one-third said that 25 to 50 percent of their colleagues would join, and nearly one-third thought that more than half would participate. Plastic surgeons believed that many of their patients would also participate in managed care aesthetic surgery. Twenty-four percent thought that more than half of their patients would choose an aesthetic surgeon through their managed care organization if that organization developed a network for aesthetic surgery. This figure increased to almost 40 percent if the organization would deny coverage for complications resulting from nonpanel surgeons, and to 41 percent if the organization would offer price discounts. This survey shows that most plastic surgeons are against managed care aesthetic surgery. But it also shows that some plastic surgeons will participate, and that most plastic surgeons think many of their colleagues and patients will do likewise. This means that managed care organizations have the potential to make inroads in aesthetic surgery on both the supplier and consumer ends of the market. To prevent managed care from capturing aesthetic surgery, plastic surgeons must anticipate the likely business strategy of managed care. To this end, they must understand the steps involved in the creation of a new service business and offer organized countermeasures against each of them.     

Reconstruction after conservative treatment for breast cancer: cosmetic sequelae classification revisited

Patients with suboptimal results following breast conservative therapy are presenting more frequently to plastic surgeons as a difficult management problem. A three-type "cosmetic sequelae classification" is proposed to evaluate and manage these patients. From February of 1991 to November of 2001, 85 patients were treated for cosmetic sequelae of breast conservative therapy at the Institut Curie. The patients were followed up prospectively for 6 to 132 months (median, 33 months). They were assessed with regard to age, site and stage of tumor, type of initial breast conservative therapy undertaken, corrective operative procedures performed, complications, and cosmetic results. Forty-eight patients (56.5 percent) had type 1 cosmetic sequelae, 33 patients (38.8 percent) had type 2, and four patients (4.7 percent) had type 3. Type 1 was managed by contralateral symmetrizing procedures. Type 2 was the most difficult to manage by means of various procedures. Type 3 required mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Type 1 had 97.6 percent good results compared with 82.7 percent for type 2. Three of the four type 3 patients had good results. This article reaffirms the validity of the cosmetic sequelae classification as a simple, practical guide for breast reconstructive surgeons. It discusses the various choices of reconstructive procedures available, the importance of preventing these cosmetic sequelae, and the role of the plastic surgeon in the planning of conservative treatment of breast cancers.     

The economics of plastic surgery practices: trends in income, procedure mix, and volume

Anecdotally, plastic surgeons have complained of working harder for the same or less income in recent years. They also complain of falling fees for reconstructive surgery and increasing competition for cosmetic surgery. This study examined these notions using the best available data. To gain a better understanding of the current plastic surgery market, plastic surgeon incomes, fees, volume, and relative mix of cosmetic and reconstructive surgery were analyzed between the years 1992 and 2002. To gain a broader perspective, plastic surgeon income trends were then compared with those of other medical specialties and of nonmedical professions. The data show that in real dollars, plastic surgeon incomes have remained essentially steady in recent years, despite plastic surgeons increasing their surgery load by an average of 41 percent over the past 10 years. The overall income trend is similar to that of members of other medical specialties and other nonmedical professionals. The average practice percentage of cosmetic surgery was calculated and found to have increased from 27 percent in 1992 to 58 percent in 2002. This most likely can be explained by the findings that real dollar fees collected for cosmetic surgery have decreased very slightly, whereas those for reconstructive procedures have experienced sharp declines. This study demonstrates that plastic surgeons have adjusted their practice profiles in recent years. They have increased their case loads and shifted their practices toward cosmetic surgery, most likely with the goal of maintaining their incomes. The strategy appears to have been successful in the short term. However, with increasing competition and falling prices for cosmetic surgery, it may represent a temporary bulwark for plastic surgeon incomes unless other steps are taken.     

Basics of immune responses in transplantation in preparation for application of composite tissue allografts in plastic and reconstructive surgery: part I

Currently, composite tissue allografts are applied only occasionally as a reconstructive option in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. Composite tissue allografts offer a unique potential for coverage of large multitissue defects. However, compared with the relatively homogenous tissue of solid organ transplants, the heterogenicity of tissue components of composite tissue allografts may generate high immunologic responses. Modern immunosuppressive agents significantly improve successful allograft acceptance. However, chronic allograft rejection and immunosuppressive drug toxicity are still major problems in the clinical practice of transplantation. The major goals of transplantation immunology are (1) to develop tolerance to allograft transplants and (2) long-term drug-free survival. A number of experimental protocols were designed to develop tolerance; however, none of them has been proven to induce tolerance in clinical transplantation. In this article, the authors outline the mechanisms of allograft acceptance and rejection and barriers to transplantation tolerance. Novel immunosuppressive protocols are discussed in this review. This basic immunologic knowledge of allograft acceptance and rejection will allow plastic surgeons to apply composite tissue allograft transplants to plastic and reconstructive surgery.     

The Danish Registry for Plastic Surgery of the Breast: establishment of a nationwide registry for prospective follow-up,quality assessment,and investigation of breast surgery

Although numerous epidemiologic studies have examined the long-term safety of silicone breast implants during the past decade, there is a relative lack of surveillance data on short-term health effects and complications following cosmetic surgery of the breast. The Danish Registry for Plastic Surgery of the Breast, established in May of 1999, provides plastic surgeons with a nationwide system for the collection of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data on women undergoing breast implantation, breast reduction, or mastopexy. The purpose of the Registry is to examine short-term and, eventually, long-term local complications and possible health effects, and to contribute to an ongoing evaluation of surgical results and surveillance of the products. Furthermore, the Registry will allow the identification of new areas for research into cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Women accepting registration in the Danish Registry for Plastic Surgery of the Breast complete a self-administered questionnaire focusing on medical history and demographic and behavioral factors. Preoperative blood samples are drawn for storage. Surgical data, postoperative results, and complications are registered following surgery and at postoperative visits. Currently, registration has been initiated at 24 private and public clinics, representing more than 80 percent of the plastic surgery clinics in Denmark. As of November of 2001, a total of 1472 women with breast implants and 560 women with breast reduction were included in the Registry. These figures are expected to increase annually by 1000 women undergoing breast implantation and 500 women undergoing breast reduction or mastopexy. The authors present their experience of establishing the first nationwide comprehensive clinical-epidemiologic database and biological bank for cosmetic and reconstructive surgery procedures.     

Current practices of plastic surgeons at King Abdulaziz University Hospital in requesting breast imaging studies prior to non-oncological breast surgeries

BackgroundIn the context of the high incidence of breast cancer and the high frequency of breast cosmetic surgeries, malignant and/or premalignant lesions are frequently detected incidentally in postoperative histopathology specimens. The current literature does not provide clear practice guidelines for the use of preoperative imaging prior to non-oncological breast surgeries.ObjectivesIn this study, we aimed to determine the current practices of plastic surgeons at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) and their use of preoperative breast imaging before non-oncological breast surgeries.DesignNon-intervention/ retrospective record review.SettingsDepartment of Radiology at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH).MethodsIn 08/06/2017 at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, we conducted a single-center, retrospective chart review of the medical files of candidates for non-oncological breast surgery in order to examine preoperative imaging requests by plastic surgeons in the period 01/01/2013 to 08/06/2017.Main outcome measuresThe practice of plastic surgeons at KAUH in requesting preoperative imaging prior non-oncological breast surgeries.Sample size104 patients.ResultsWe found that, in the period 2013 to 2017, 104 women who underwent non-oncological breast surgeries were evaluated for recent preoperative breast imaging. Only 37 patients (35.6%) were found to have had preoperative imaging, and only less than one fifth (19.4%) of those 37 patients had abnormal preoperative imaging results, all of which were negative for malignancy.ConclusionsAlthough the yield of malignancy on preoperative breast imaging was zero in women seeking non-oncological breast surgeries at KAUH, we recommend the establishment of unified practice guidelines to be followed by plastic surgeons for better postoperative screening in different risk groups.LimitationsLack of follow up of patients postoperatively for any development of malignancy.     

Victor von Bruns (1812-1883) and his contributions to plastic and reconstructive surgery

Victor von Bruns was an active surgeon in Germany during the nineteenth century. His work is accompanied by many illustrations, and a selected few are presented in this survey. His original contributions to plastic and reconstructive surgery are notable, mainly in lip and cheek reconstruction. These are still valid today and have been adopted by many plastic surgeons. His books dealt not only with plastic surgery, but with almost every surgical event, such as amputation, larynx surgery, galvanosurgery, and war surgery. His publications and illustrations give an excellent picture of the advances made by him and other plastic surgeons during the second half of the nineteenth century, thus making him an important contributor to the renaissance of plastic surgery.     

Reasons why mastectomy patients do not have breast reconstruction

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy is valuable, yet only a small percentage of eligible patients ever have reconstruction. Little has been done to determine why so few patients proceed with reconstructive surgery. A homogeneous population of mastectomy patients, some of whom underwent breast reconstruction while others did not, were surveyed regarding their attitudes about breast reconstruction. A total of 245 women were surveyed. One-hundred and fifty-eight (64 percent) responded, 71 of whom had been reconstructed while 87 had not. Comparison of the responses of the two groups suggests factors that play a role in determining whether the mastectomy patient will accept or decline the option of breast reconstruction. Considerations that made it less likely that a woman would pursue reconstruction included advanced age at the time of mastectomy, concern about complications from further surgery, uncertainty about outcome, and fear about the effect of reconstruction on future problems with breast cancer. Marital status, receiving chemotherapy, or knowing a patient who had a bad result from reconstruction did not affect the decision. An awareness and understanding of these factors may be helpful to physicians in counseling patients and in increasing the number of women who enjoy the benefits of breast reconstruction.     

Establishing a multidisciplinary academic cosmetic center

The demand for cosmetic services has risen rapidly in recent years, but has slowed down with the current economic downturn. Managed care organizations and Medicare have been steadily reducing their reimbursements for physician services. The payment for reconstructive surgical procedures has been decreasing and is likely to worsen with healthcare reform, and many plastic surgery residency programs are facing fiscal challenges. An adequate volume of patients needing cosmetic services is necessary to recruit and train the best candidates to the residency programs. Self-pay patients will help ensure the fiscal viability of plastic surgery residency programs. Attracting patients to an academic healthcare center will become more difficult in a recession without the appropriate facilities, programs, and pricing strategies. Setting up a modern cosmetic services program at an academic center has some unique challenges, including funding, academic politics, and turf. The authors opened a free-standing academic multidisciplinary center at their medical school 3 years ago. The center is an off-site, 13,000-sq ft facility that includes faculty from plastic surgery, ear, nose, and throat, dermatology, and vascular surgery. In this article, the authors discuss the process of developing and executing a plan for starting an aesthetic services center in an academic setting. The financing of the center and factors in pricing services are discussed. The authors show the impact of the center on their cosmetic surgery patient volumes, resident education, and finances. They expect that their experience will be helpful to other plastic surgery programs at academic medical centers.     

Family Physicians' Barriers to Cancer Screening in Extremely Obese Patients

Extremely obese women are less likely than nonobese women to receive breast and cervical cancer screening examinations. Reasons for this disparity are unclear and may stem from patient and/or physician barriers. This sequential mixed‐methods study used individual in‐depth interviews of 15 family physicians followed by a mail survey of 255 family physicians (53% response rate) to understand the barriers they faced in performing cancer screening examinations in extremely obese women. Barriers fell into three main areas: (i) difficulty doing pelvic and breast exams; (ii) inadequate equipment; and (iii) challenges overcoming patient barriers and refusal. This led some physicians to avoid performing breast and pelvic examinations on extremely obese women. Having more knowledge about specific examination techniques was associated with less difficulty in palpating lumps on breast and pelvic examinations (P < 0.005). Physicians perceived that embarrassment, aversion to undressing, and avoidance of discussions related to their weight were the most frequent barriers extremely obese women had with getting physical examinations. Educating and/or motivating patients and addressing fears were strategies used most frequently when patients refused mammograms or Pap smears. Interventions focusing on physician barriers, such as educating them on specific examination techniques, obtaining adequate equipment and supplies, and providing resources to assist physicians in dealing with patient barriers and refusal, may be fruitful in increasing cancer screening rates in extremely obese patients. Future research studies testing the effectiveness of these strategies are needed to improve cancer outcomes in this high‐risk population.     

Advanced technologies in plastic surgery: how new innovations can improve our training and practice

Over the last two decades, virtual reality, haptics, simulators, robotics, and other "advanced technologies" have emerged as important innovations in medical learning and practice. Reports on simulator applications in medicine now appear regularly in the medical, computer science, engineering, and popular literature. The goal of this article is to review the emerging intersection between advanced technologies and surgery and how new technology is being utilized in several surgical fields, particularly plastic surgery. The authors also discuss how plastic and reconstructive surgeons can benefit by working to further the development of multimedia and simulated environment technologies in surgical practice and training.     

Aesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing breast conservation therapy for the treatment of localized breast cancer

Localized breast cancer can be treated with lumpectomy and postoperative radiation therapy, also called breast conservation therapy, with an efficacy equivalent to that of mastectomy. Reports evaluating the effects of radiotherapy suggested that breast conservation therapy had "acceptable" cosmetic outcomes; thus, posttreatment evaluation for aesthetic impact has not been instituted as a standard of care. More recent reports have suggested that the effect of breast conservation therapy on aesthetic outcome is not minimal and that patients may benefit from reconstructive consultation. The purpose of this study was to measure objectively the aesthetic change in women who undergo breast conservation therapy and whether the extent of change is significant enough (objectively and subjectively) to warrant plastic surgery consultation. The authors evaluated 21 patients who had undergone breast conservation therapy. Eleven non-breast cancer patients seeking plastic surgery consultation were used as controls. Standardized five-view photographs (frontal, left and right lateral, and left and right lateral oblique views) were obtained. Patient photograph sets were compiled and evaluated independently by eight reviewers (four surgeons, two nurses, and two medical students). Reviewers evaluated the photographs using the breast asymmetry score (score range, 0 to 9) assessing breast size, ptosis, nipple-areola position, shape, scar appearance, contour deformity, and skin changes. The authors considered 2 SD above the control mean as significant. Breast conservation therapy patients also completed a 15-item questionnaire targeting objective and subjective data about treatment-related breast change. Breast conservation therapy patients had an average treatment-related asymmetry score of 1.93, with 35 percent demonstrating significant change as compared with controls. Although most patients (86 percent) were satisfied with the cancer treatment outcome, all patients noted asymmetry. The authors' data indicate that breast conservation therapy can cause significant asymmetry; thus, an option for plastic surgery consultation as part of the treatment protocol is warranted.     

Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES--To assess outside a clinical trial the psychological outcome of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer who underwent either mastectomy or breast conservation surgery depending on the surgeon''s opinion or the patient''s choice. To determine whether the extent of psychiatric morbidity reported in women who underwent breast conservation surgery was associated with their participation in a randomised clinical trial. DESIGN--Prospective, multicentre study capitalising on individual and motivational differences among patients and the different management policies among surgeons for treating patients with early breast cancer. SETTING--12 District general hospitals, three London teaching hospitals, and four private hospitals. PATIENTS--269 Women under 75 with a probable diagnosis of stage I or II breast cancer who were referred to 22 different surgeons. INTERVENTIONS--Surgery and radiotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy, or both, depending on the individual surgeon''s stated preferences for managing early breast cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Anxiety and depression as assessed by standard methods two weeks, three months, and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS--Of the 269 women, 31 were treated by surgeons who favoured mastectomy, 120 by surgeons who favoured breast conservation, and 118 by surgeons who offered a choice of treatment. Sixty two of the women treated by surgeons who offered a choice were eligible to choose their surgery, and 43 of these chose breast conserving surgery. The incidences of anxiety, depression, and sexual dysfunction were high in all treatment groups. There were no significant differences in the incidences of anxiety and depression between women who underwent mastectomy and those who underwent lumpectomy. A significant effect of surgeon type on the incidence of depression was observed, with patients treated by surgeons who offered a choice showing less depression than those treated by other surgeons (p = 0.06). There was no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity between women treated by surgeons who offered a choice who were eligible to choose their treatment and those in the same group who were not able to choose. Most of the women (159/244) gave fear of cancer as their primary fear rather than fear of losing a breast. The overall incidences of psychiatric morbidity in women who underwent mastectomy and those who underwent lumpectomy were similar to those found in the Cancer Research Campaign breast conservation study. At 12 months 28% of women who underwent mastectomy in the present study were anxious compared with 26% in the earlier study, and 27% of women in the present study who underwent lumpectomy were anxious compared with 31% in the earlier study. In both the present and earlier study 21% of women who underwent mastectomy were depressed, and 19% of women who underwent lumpectomy in the present study were depressed compared with 27% in the earlier study.) CONCLUSIONS--There is still no evidence that women with early breast cancer who undergo breast conservation surgery have less psychiatric morbidity after treatment than those who undergo mastectomy. Women who surrender autonomy for decision making by agreeing to participate in randomised clinical trials do not experience any different psychological, sexual, or social problems from those women who are treated for breast cancer outside a clinical trial.     

Type of breast reconstructive surgery among breast cancer patients: a population-based study

The type of breast reconstructive surgery (implant versus flap) was examined among all Connecticut-resident breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1994 and 1997 and identified from a population-based cancer registry. Type of reconstruction was obtained primarily from questionnaires sent to hospitals, but physicians were contacted about selected patients. Among 526 patients who underwent reconstruction, reconstruction with a flap (with or without an implant; 367 patients, or 69.8 percent) was more frequent than reconstruction with an implant alone (111 patients, or 21.1 percent); the type of reconstruction was unknown for 48 patients (9.1 percent). Some disagreement was found between reports from physicians and hospitals in a subsample of patients diagnosed in 1997. This study describes the baseline data and methods for examining trends in type of reconstruction among breast cancer patients in a defined population.