A comparison of the patient and surgeon opinion on the long-term aesthetic outcome of reduction mammaplasty: Have we improved over 15 years?

SummaryIn 1996 we published a study evaluating the difference between patient and surgeon opinion on the aesthetic outcome of reduction mammaplasty (see Ref. 1). The patients rated the aesthetic outcome of their surgery as significantly higher than the consultant panel. The surgical panel suggested scope for improvement. Areas of dissatisfaction were poor scarring, high placement of the nipple areola complex and high rates of revision surgery.Fifteen years on, the same team has regrouped to repeat this assessment. In 1996 the consultants scored their own patient results. In 2011 they graded the results of their former trainee who has modified her operative technique to address aesthetic problems highlighted in the first study.Forty-four patients attended a review clinic at least one year post reduction mammaplasty. Patient scored their satisfaction using the original questionnaire employed in 1996. The cohort were photographed and their images graded blindly by the original surgical panel. Statistical analysis was performed by the original statistician.The patients graded aesthetic aspects of body harmony, breast mound appearance, nipple areolar complex appearance and post-operative scarring significantly more positively (p < 0.01) than both the 1996 patient cohort and surgical panel. The consultant panel showed a trend for more positive grades for all aesthetic features assessed versus their previous views but this was only significant for breast mound symmetry. They expressed that there was a decrease in post-operative breast ptosis (p < 0.04) and improvement in the nipple areolar complex position (p = 0.02). The rate of revision surgery has decreased from 53% to 16% between the studies.In keeping with clinical audit, outcomes have been assessed and modifications implemented to address aesthetic concerns. Assessment of outcomes following the modifications demonstrates a trend for increased patient and surgeon satisfaction. Patient satisfaction however still exceeds that of the surgeons.