The Impact of Reconstructive Modality and Postoperative Complications on Decision Regret and Patient-Reported Outcomes following Breast Reconstruction

Shared decision-making gives patients greater autonomy in their healthcare decisions; however, decisions that result in negative outcomes may lead to decision regret. The complexity of reconstructive options makes post-mastectomy breast reconstruction particularly prone to decision regret. This study’s purpose was to explore the relationship between breast reconstruction modalities and degree of postoperative decision regret. Patients who had undergone either implant-based or autologous breast reconstruction with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up were invited to complete the Decision Regret Scale and the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breasts module. The impact of reconstructive modality and occurrence of postoperative complications on decision regret and satisfaction with breasts was examined. Sixty-three patients completed the questionnaires–25 patients with implant-based reconstruction and 38 patients with autologous reconstruction. The average Decision Regret score was 84.6 ± 23.6; thirty-one patients experienced no decision regret. The average score for the BREAST-Q module was 81.9 ± 18.8. Neither satisfaction with breasts nor decision regret were impacted by the reconstructive modality. The occurrence of postoperative complications was strongly correlated with lower Decision Regret scores (91.6 vs. 74.6, p=0.004) but was not correlated with lower Satisfaction with Breasts scores (84.6 vs. 78.2, p=0.18). Patients had relatively low levels of decision regret and relatively high levels of satisfaction with breasts, irrespective of reconstructive modality. Having a postoperative complication led to significantly greater levels of decision regret without impacting satisfaction with breasts. Patients may benefit from additional preoperative education on possible complications to mitigate decision regret.

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.​springer.​com/​00266.