ЖурналыПодпискаАрхивКнигиПроектыО насРекламаДоставка/ОплатаКонтакты
+7 (495) 482-43-29
  • Главная
  • / Журналы
  • / Вернуться в журнал
  • / Содержание номера
  • / Статья
Comparison of Breast-Q scores following T-inverted augmentation mastopexy using split-thickness fascioglandular flap and standard technique: a prospective study

Comparison of Breast-Q scores following T-inverted augmentation mastopexy using split-thickness fascioglandular flap and standard technique: a prospective study

Authors:
Ульяна Афанасьевна Готовцева,
Наталья Евгеньевна Мантурова,
Дмитрий Владимирович Мельников,
Александра Эрнестовна Шпицер,
Александра Евгеньевна Церр

Журнал: Пластическая хирургия и эстетическая медицина. 2026;(2-2):29-34.

DOI: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202602229

Read: 1521 раз

Download PDF (RU)Download PDF (EN)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare satisfaction with breasts, sexual and physical well-being using the BREAST-Q questionnaire in 12 months after T-inverted augmentation mastopexy with and without split-thickness fascioglandular flap.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center prospective study included 85 patients who underwent T-inverted augmentation mastopexy with (n=40) and without (n=45) split-thickness fascioglandular flap. Before surgery and 12 months after procedure, patients were assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire on three scales: satisfaction with breast, sexual and physical well-being. Data are presented as median and interquartile range. The Mann—Whitney test was used for between-group comparisons and the Wilcoxon test for within-group comparisons. The effect size was estimated using r coefficient.

RESULTS

No significant between-group differences were observed preoperatively across all scales. At 12 months, both groups demonstrated improvement in BREAST-Q scores compared to baseline. However, postoperative values for all three scales were higher in split-thickness fascioglandular flap group: satisfaction with breasts — 85.0 [77.0; 91.0] versus 74.0 [68.0; 80.0] points (p<0.001), sexual well-being — 79.0 [73.0; 90.0] versus 71.0 [64.0; 77.0] points (p<0.001), physical well-being — 73.5 [64.5; 85.3] versus 67.0 [60.0; 73.0] points (p=0.003). Effect sizes for satisfaction with breasts and sexual well-being scales were large in both groups, while effect size for physical well-being was moderate.

CONCLUSION

T-inverted augmentation mastopexy was associated with better BREAST-Q scores in both groups. However, split-thickness fascioglandular flap was associated with higher postoperative scores across all scales at 12 months following surgery.

Keywords

  • BREAST-Q
  • augmentation mastopexy
  • fascioglandular flap
  • psychosocial well-being
  • sexual well-being
  • quality of life
  • Shapiro—Wilk test
  • Wilcoxon test
  • effect size

Дата поступления: 22.03.2026

Дата принятия в печать: 11.04.2026

Дата публикации: 21.05.2026

References
  1. Khavanin N, Jordan SW, Rambachan A, Kim JYS. A systematic review of single-stage augmentation-mastopexy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2014;134(5):922-931. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000582
  2. Messa CA, Messa CA. One-stage augmentation mastopexy: a retrospective ten-year review of 2183 consecutive procedures. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2019;39(12):1352-1367. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz143
  3. Calobrace MB, Herdt DR, Cothron KJ. Simultaneous augmentation/mastopexy: a retrospective 5-year review of 332 consecutive cases. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2013;131(1):145-156. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e318272bf86
  4. Mansur AEC, Graf RM, Fadul R Jr, Balbinot P, Nasser IG, de Paula DR, Maschio AG, Chahine F, Atiyeh B. Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy: an innovative anatomical approach — the fascioglandular flap for improved lower pole support. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2020;44(5):1414-1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01702-5
  5. Selvarajoo G, See MH, Lee Lai L, Ng JH, Mosiun JA, Sikin SM, Baghawi A. Patient‐Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Assessment in Breast Surgery Using BREAST‐Q: A Multi‐Center Prospective Study. World Journal of Surgery. 2025;49(11):2981-2989. https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70045
  6. Hanson SE, Lei X, Roubaud MS, DeSnyder SM, Caudle AS, Shaitelman SF, Hoffman KE, Smith GL, Jagsi R, Peterson SK, Smith BD. Long-term quality of life in patients with breast cancer after breast conservation vs mastectomy and reconstruction. JAMA Surgery. 2022;157(6):e220631. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0631
  7. Zaussinger M, Wenny R, Huemer GM. Auto-augmentation mastopexy: inferiorly based parenchymal flap technique and evaluation of outcomes using BREAST-Q after 151 consecutive patients. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2022; 46(6):2723-2732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02868-w
  8. Bistoni G, Sofo F, Cagli B, Buccheri EM, Mallucci P. Artificial intelligence, genuine outcome: analysis of 72 consecutive cases of subfascial augmentation mastopexy with smooth round implants supported by P4HB scaffold. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2024;44(11):1154-1166. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae109
  9. Danilla S, Cayupán C, Cala L, Durán H. Long-term satisfaction with breast augmentation and augmentation mastopexy in the Latin American population. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2024;48(17):3370-3377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-03900-x
  10. Malanichev MYu, Garipov RR, Gabeev AI, Zakirov EZ, Pakhomov RA, Demyashkin GA, Vadyukhin MA. Comparative characteristics of complications after mastopexy in combination with or without augmentation mammoplasty (literature review). Voprosy` rekonstruktivnoj i plasticheskoj xirurgii.. 2024;27(4):31-41. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52581/1814-1471/91/04
  11. Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 1976;3(2):193-203.
  12. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2009;124(2):345-353. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181aee807
  13. Marino M, Alessandri-Bonetti M, Carbonaro R, Amendola F. Technical refinements for reducing reoperations in single-stage augmentation mastopexy: a retrospective matched cohort study. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2024;48(20): 4144-4155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-03917-2
  14. Sanniec K, Adams Jr WP. The tissue-based triad in augmentation mastopexy: single-stage technical refinements. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2019;39(12): 1331-1341. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz006
  15. Luong KP, Peters M, Slijper HP, Hummelink S, Ulrich DJO. Patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life in patients with breast augmentation: a follow-up of 6 months. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2024;154(2):299-309. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000011029
  16. Kalaaji A, Dreyer S, Brinkmann J, Maric I, Nordahl C, Olafsen K. Quality of life after breast enlargement with implants versus augmentation mastopexy: a comparative study. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2018;38(12):1304-1315. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy047
  17. Richards C, Patel S, Markham H, Varghese J, Cutress RI. The inframammary fold: Structure, clinical considerations, and reconstructive techniques. JPRAS Open. 2025;48:457-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2025.11.022
  18. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2012;129(2):293-302. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31823aec6b
slide-cover

Recommended articles:

Assessment of quality of life as a criterion for the effectiveness of treatment of patients with rosacea (according to two clinical cases).Journal of Adaptive Medical Immunology and Public Health Issues. 2026;2(2-3):72-78

Clinical and laboratory features and quality of life of children with severe bronchial asthma.Journal of Adaptive Medical Immunology and Public Health Issues. 2026;2(2-3):41-48

Complex non-drug therapies in patients with vasovagal syncope, adherence to treatment and quality of life.Russian Cardiology Bulletin. 2026;21(3):74-82

Experience in using a TAP block during TAPP surgery for inguinal hernia in a short-stay hospital setting.Endoscopic Surgery. 2026;32(5):48-54

Evaluation of spike formation and quality of life in patients with primary midline ventral hernias after endoscopic eTEP Sublay and IPOM surgeries: a cohort study.Endoscopic Surgery. 2026;32(5):20-29

Chronic bronchitis in outpatient practice: unsolved diagnostic problems and therapeutic challenges.Russian Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2026;29(9):110-115

How is artificial intelligence changing the daily work of therapists? A review of global and Russian experience.Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice. 2026;48(3):46-52

Multifactorial assessment of septoplasty outcomes: from anatomical correction to improved quality of life.Russian Rhinology. 2026;34(3):62-68

Assessment of the quality of life of patients with recalcitrant chronic maxillary sinusitis after revision endoscopic sinus surgery: an analysis of early and long-term outcomes.Russian Rhinology. 2026;34(3):20-26

Quality of life after prophylactic mastectomy with simultaneous reconstruction.Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2025;(2-2):5-12

Издательство «Медиа Сфера»
РекламаДоставка/ОплатаО насКонтактыОбучение для редакцийПолитика конфиденциальностиПолитика обработки персональных данныхПубличная оферта на реализацию издательской продукции
ЖурналыПодпискаАрхивКнигиПроекты
  • RuStore

© 1998-2026

  • Телефоны издательства:

  • +7 (495) 482-41-18
  • +7 (495) 482-43-29
  • Прямой телефон отдела подписки
    (только по вопросам заказов и доставки журналов)

  • +7 (800) 250-18-12
  • пн-пт с 10:00 до 18:00

  • Telegram
  • VK
info@mediasphera.ru
  • Почтовый адрес:

  • Издательство «Медиа Сфера»,
    а/я 54, Москва, Россия, 127238

  • RuStore

© 1998-2026