RBM - Volume 20, Número 1, Jan-Mar 2010 - Sociedade Brasileira ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Quality of life and self-esteem outcomes following augmentation mammaplasty25100959085807570PainPhysical FRole PHealth PEvaluation of quality of life and self-esteem was made attwo different postoperative moments: second and fourth month.In the second month, ecchymosis is not evident, and thereis not residual edema. The second postoperative evaluation wasperformed four months after surgery, when esthetic benefitsare already optimal. The literature presents studies evaluatingpatients with questionnaires after one 11 , two and four months9,10 , and after two to seven years 12 .SF-36 subscales physical function, role limitations dueto physical problems and pain showed no statistically significantchanges when preoperative and postoperative periodswere compared. These subscales evaluate aspects of patients’everyday lives, such as physical difficulty in accomplishingdaily activities, self-perception of physical health, complaintsabout pain before and after surgery. Augmentation mammaplastyseems not to affect these aspects, and pain is no longerpresent at two or four months after surgery.The subscale of health perception presented significant improvementat two and four months of the postoperative period.Health perception relates more to physical health thanto mental health 15 . This aspect evaluates patients’ perspectivesof future health; emotional alterations occurring in the postoperativeperiod may be responsible for differences betweenpreoperative and postoperative and, second and fourth postoperativemonths.Energy subscale scores improved after two months (statisticallysignificant when compared to preoperative) and fourmonths (statistically significant when compared to preoperativeand two months of postoperative). The energy domain maybe directly influenced by emotional health. These findings arein line with the literature 11-15 . Since there was a decrease in anxietyafter surgery, patients felt more willing and motivatedin their working activities when esthetic results were optimal.The subscale of social function showed significant improvementonly four months after the procedure, despite the escores’increase noted in the second postoperative month. Four monthsafer surgery, with notable surgical benefits added to mentalhealth improvement, patients experienced more active sociallife and better personal relationships 11 .EnergySocia lRole EPre-op60 days120 daysMental HFigure 1. Domains percentages according to preoperative, two and four months ofpostoperativeThe mental health subscale presented a significant improvementin scores on the second and fourth postoperativemonths. It is related to the patient’s perception of anxiety anddepression, ignoring its influence in daily professional or hometasks. This shows that patients perceive their anxiety, but itdoes not necessarily cause serious problems in their lives. Afteraugmentation mammaplasty, anxiety lessens and mental healthscores improve.SF-36 mean scores in the three evaluated periods are shownin Figure 1.The RSS scores showed progressive statistically significantdecrease in the second and fourth postoperative months (lesserscores indicate better self-esteem). Changes in this domainwere intense, showing that surgery had a direct influence onthese patients’ self-esteem, which suffered significant positiveimpact after augmentation mammaplasty.The findings of this study indicate that augmentationmammaplasty appears to exert a positive effect on the patients’well-being throughout several aspects of their general healthstatus. These findings are in strong accordance with prior studies,which also showed substantial benefits to patients’ physicaland psychological health and well-being after surgicalprocedures. This paper supports the idea that plastic surgeryprocedures should not be seen as “entirely cosmetic” proceduresthat do not provide benefit to general health status, for theimprovements are clear.References1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey.Med Care. 1992;30(6):473-83.2. Klassen A, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Goodacre T. Patients’ healthrelated quality of life before and after aesthetic surgery. Br J PlastSurg. 1996;49(7):433-8.3. Shakespeare V, Cole RP. Measuring patient-based outcomes in aplastic surgery service: Breast reduction surgical patients. Br J PlastSurg. 1997;50(4):242-8.4. Cole RP, Shakespeare V, Shakespeare P. Measuring outcome in lowpriority plastic surgery patients usingquality of life indices. Br J PlastSurg. 1994;47(2):117-21.5. Behmand RA, Tang D, Smith DJ. Outcomes in the breast reductionsurgery. gmentation and reduction mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg.2000;45(3):575-80.6. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W. Applied linearstatistical models. 4ed. Boston: IRWIN; 1996.7. Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammoplasty: a new “naturalfeel” prosthesis. In: Transactions of the Third International Congressof Plastic Surgery (Excerpa Medica International CongressSeries, n. o 66). Amsterdam: Excerpa Medica; 1964. p. 41-9.8. Regnault P. Partially submuscular breast augmentation. Plast ReconstrSurg. 1977;59(1):72-6.9. Burk J, Zelen SL, Terino EO. More than skin deep: A self consistencyapproach to the psychology of cosmetic surgery. Plast ReconstrSurg. 1985;76(2):270-5.Rev Bras Mastologia. 2010;20(1):22-26
26Abla LEF, Sabino Neto M , Garcia EB, Ferreira LM10. Young VL, Nemecek JR, Nemecek DA. The efficacy of breast augmentation:breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychologicale effects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;94(7):958-69.11. Rankin M, Borah GL, Perry AW, Wey PD. Quality of life outcomesafter cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(4):2139-47.12. Beale S, Hambert G, Lisper HO, Ohlsén L, Palm B. Augmentationmammaplasty: The surgical and psychological effects of the operationand prediction of the result. Ann Plast Surg. 1985;14(6):473-93.13. Crockett DJ. Aspects of plastic surgery: scars. BMJ. 1974;2(5920):648-51.14. Guyatt GH, Feeney DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related qualityof life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(8):622-9.15. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short formhealth survey (SF-36): II. psychometric and clinical tests of validityin measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care.1993;31(3):247-63.16. Sarwer DB, Bartlett SP, Bucky LP, Larossa D, Low DW, PertschukMJ, et al. Bigger is not always better: Body image dissastisfaction inbreast reduction and breast augmentation patients. Plast ReconstrSurg. 1998;101(7):1956-61.Rev Bras Mastologia. 2010;20(1):22-26
Page 1 and 2: ISSN 0104-8058Órgão Oficial da So
Page 3 and 4: Ex-presidentesAlberto L. M. Coutinh
Page 5 and 6: Sua paciente merece todocarinho na
Page 7 and 8: cípios, em especial das grandes e
Page 9 and 10: 4 Steinmacher DI, Kemp C, Nazário
Page 15: ARTIGO ORIGINALEstudo do biomarcado
Page 19 and 20: 14Melitto AS, Mattar A, Cintra KA,
Page 21 and 22: 16Jardim DLF, Calabrich AFC, Katz A
Page 27 and 28: ARTIGO ORIGINALQuality of life and
Page 29: 24Abla LEF, Sabino Neto M , Garcia
Page 33 and 34: 28Tarricone Junior V , Tarricone SP
Page 39 and 40: 34Manoel WJ, Paula CI, Paula ÉC, P
Page 41 and 42: 36Manoel WJ, Paula CI, Paula ÉC, P
Page 43 and 44: Carcinoma ductal em mama supranumé
Page 45 and 46: 40Oliveira HR, Zucoloto FJ, Madurei
Page 47 and 48: ARTIGO DE REVISÃOAvaliação da qu
Page 49 and 50: 44Torres AF, Figueira Filho ASSlinf
Page 51 and 52: 46Torres AF, Figueira Filho ASSa do
Page 53 and 54: ARTIGO DE ATUALIZAÇÃOGenética e
Page 55 and 56: 50Barros ACSD, Barros ACSDpara a ge
Page 57 and 58: 52Barros ACSD, Barros ACSDverme (Ca
Page 59 and 60: 54Barros ACSD, Barros ACSDser class
Page 61 and 62: por todos os doentes. E o que se en
Page 63: INSTRUÇÕES AOS AUTORESas implica

RBM - Volume 20, Número 1, Jan-Mar 2010 - Sociedade Brasileira ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?