Skip to main content

BREAST-Q outcomes after chest wall perforator flap reconstruction versus mastectomy: A single-centre retrospective cross-sectional study

In brief

Chest wall perforator flaps score better than mastectomy for psychosocial and sexual well-being

In this single-center retrospective comparison, patients who had chest wall perforator flap reconstruction reported better psychosocial and sexual well-being than those who had mastectomy alone, with comparable physical well-being. The findings support this breast-conserving option for appropriately selected patients, but the study provides no effect sizes and cannot establish that reconstruction caused the differences.

Journal
European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology (Q1)
Published
14 October 2026
Study design
Cohort / observational study
Evidence level
Level 3, Low (CEBM 3b)
Authors
Sara Iqbal, Sadia Jaskani, Spoorthi Shetty, Noor Obeid
PMID
42887076
DOI
10.1016/j.ejso.2026.112200

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

Chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) enable breast conservation while maintaining oncological safety. Although evidence supports the safety of CWPF from the surgeon's perspective, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compares patient-reported outcomes following CWPF reconstruction with those after mastectomy, using validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This retrospective study was conducted between January 2017 and January 2023. Patients were grouped according to treatment with either CWPF reconstruction or mastectomy. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the postoperative BREAST-Q Version 2.0 questionnaire. Between-group differences were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test, with Bonferroni correction applied for multiple comparisons. CWPF reconstruction is associated with meaningful improvements in patient-reported quality of life compared with mastectomy alone, particularly in psychosocial and sexual well-being, while maintaining comparable physical well-being in appropriately selected patients.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.