Aesthetic Surgery Patient Profiles: Public Hospital Example

Goals/Purpose Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS), and especially aesthetic surgery, is uniquely characterized by an increased ability to research and select their surgeon. As the increasing number of female plastic surgeons begin to establish themselves in practice, it remains understudied if gender or implicit gender biases is a variable in patient surgeon-selection. Wallis, et al.’s landmark paper in 2023 suggested that female surgeons exhibited a lower risk-adjusted likelihood of adverse postoperative outcomes, including mortality, hospital readmission, and major medical complications, although the precise mechanisms remain unclear. Currently, it is unknown if the public is aware of these findings, and if it these findings would impact patient-surgeon selection. Patient-surgeon selection may be an opportunity where PRS may lead surgical subspecialties in addressing implicit surgeon gender biases due to the predominance of female patients, and improved gender representation in surgical training programs compared to other surgical subspecialties. The purpose of this study is to explore public preferences and perspectives on the role of surgeon gender in patient surgeon-selection in PRS, and if knowledge of gender-correlated surgical outcomes impact surgeon selection. A secondary aim is to examine if these public preferences differ between reconstructive versus aesthetic surgery. Methods/Technique A cross-sectional survey was distributed through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Subjects were at least 18 years old and residents of the United States. Participants were briefed about hypothetical scenarios involving aesthetic and reconstructive surgical procedures, and then asked to choose either a male and female surgeon. They were then presented with an excerpt of Wallis, et al. (2023) findings, and reassessed for surgeon gender preference. The participant cohort was stratified by gender, classifying them as female and male responders. Differences between groups were evaluated using the unpaired t-test and Fisher exact tests. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to assess associations between plastic surgeon gender preference and sociodemographic characteristics. Stata statistical software (STATA Corp., BE, 18.0) was used to conduct all statistical analyses. Results/Complications A total of 547 participants were included. Of those, 310 (56.7%) were male and 237 (43.3%) were female. The mean age was 33.8 (SD 6.8) for the male group and 35.1 (SD 7.2) for the female group. Both groups had similar percentages of level of education (p=0.071). Significant differences were observed in race (p=0.004), ethnicity (p<0.001), U.S. region of residency (p<0.001), and religion (p<0.001) (Table 1). Both groups had similar percentages of previous PRS background/interest (M: 81.3%, F: 86.1%, p=0.164). However, female participants had higher percentages of aesthetic background/interest (86.1%) compared to the male counterparts (78.7%, p=0.033). Similar interest/background in reconstructive procedures was found between groups (M: 60.0%, F: 45.6%, p=0.222) (Table 2). Statistically significant differences emerged in overall preferences for physician's gender (p<0.001), as well as preferences for the gender of plastic surgeons conducting aesthetic non-surgical (p<0.001), aesthetic surgical (p<0.001), and reconstructive surgical procedures (p<0.001), particularly favoring the same-gender preference. A higher percentage of male participants believed that the plastic surgeon's gender impacts surgical outcomes (77.4% vs. 62.0%, p<0.001), associating better outcomes with male surgeons (91.2%). The majority of female responders favored female surgeons for better outcomes (63.9%, p<0.001). Following exposure to an excerpt from the Wallis, et al. (2023) published article, preferences for female plastic surgeons increased among both groups, with statistically higher rates in the male group (79.4% vs. 69.6%; p=0.010) (Table 3). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that for aesthetic surgical procedures, female gender [10.65 OR; 95% CI (5.65–1.29); p<0.001], living in the Southwest region [1.88 OR; 95% CI (1.11–12.62); p=0.033], were factors independently linked to a higher preference for female plastic surgeons. Conversely, age [0.97 OR; 95% CI (0.94–0.99); p=0.025], and having a background/interest in reconstructive procedures [0.57 OR; 95% CI (0.35–0.93); p=0.027] were associated with a lower preference for female plastic surgeons in this category (Table 5). Following presentation of an excerpt from the Wallis, et al. (2023) article, Hispanic ethnicity [2.67 OR; 95% CI (1.31–5.48); p=0.007], residing in the Southeast region [3.12 OR; 95% CI (1.43–6.81); p=0.004], having a background/interest in aesthetic [2.05 OR; 95 %CI (1.16–3.63); p=0.014], and reconstructive procedures [3.86 OR; 95% CI (2.29–6.51); p<0.001] were associated with a higher likelihood of shifting preference towards female plastic surgeons (Table 7). Conclusion Participants demonstrated a predominant preference for surgeons of the same gender across aesthetic non-surgical, aesthetic surgical, and reconstructive procedures. Initially, gender biases affected perceptions of surgeon gender and surgical outcomes, particularly notable among male participants. However, this preference notably changed following exposure to a segment of published literature on surgeon outcomes based on gender. These findings support the importance of gender diversity in plastic surgery due to patient preference, and suggests that implicit gender biases in patient surgeon-selection persist, but can potentially be addressed with patient education. Rigorous future studies are required to expand hypothesizes generated from this proof-of-concept study, and should emphasize including non-binary populations.

Background. Three educational models for plastic surgery training exist in the United States, the integrated, combined, and independent model. The present study is a comparative analysis of aesthetic surgery training, to assess whether one model is particularly suitable to provide for high-quality training in aesthetic surgery. Methods. An 18-item online survey was developed to assess residents' perceptions regarding the quality of training in aesthetic surgery in the US. The survey had three distinct sections: demographic information, current state of aesthetic surgery training, and residents' perception regarding the quality of aesthetic surgery training. Results. A total of 86 senior plastic surgery residents completed the survey. Twenty-three, 24, and 39 residents were in integrated, combined, and independent residency programs, respectively. No statistically significant differences were seen with respect to number of aesthetic surgery procedures performed, additional training received in minimal-invasive cosmetic procedures, median level of confidence with index cosmetic surgery procedures, or perceived quality of aesthetic surgery training. Facial aesthetic procedures were felt to be the most challenging procedures. Exposure to minimally invasive aesthetic procedures was limited. Conclusion. While the educational experience in aesthetic surgery appears to be similar, weaknesses still exist with respect to training in minimally invasive/nonsurgical aesthetic procedures.

"Background: Robotic surgery currently offers a number of benefits in specific areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery such as head and neck and microsurgery, however, many subspecialties are yet to benefit from robotic operating techniques. In this paper we review recent developments in the use of robotics for head and neck, breast reconstruction, microneural, lymphoedema, craniofacial and aesthetic surgery. Methods: A literature review of English-only articles on the use of robots in plastic and reconstructive surgery was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Science databases along with a free text search using the terms ‘robotic surgery plastic surgery’, ‘robotic-assisted plastic surgery’, ‘robot-assisted reconstructive surgery’, ‘da Vinci plastic surgery’, ‘da Vinci reconstructive surgery’ and ‘supermicrosurgery’. No limitation was placed on time from publication. Results: Of the studies reviewed, the most beneficial to reconstructive surgery is the area of the head and neck, with the most common procedures being transoral surgeries and microvascular procedures. Robotic assisted breast reconstructive surgery is a promising field. The main current limitations are the lack of adequate microsurgical instrumentation and the prolonged setting-up and operative time. Conclusion: As technology improves the outlook for robotic surgery is optimistic. Areas like microsurgery, head and neck, cleft palate, breast reconstructive surgery, lymphatic and microneural surgery already demonstrate promising results. Further technological advances and evidence-based studies are necessary to address current limitations such as appropriate microsurgical instrumentation, high costs and prolonged operative time."

Professional advancement in academic plastic surgery may depend on scholarly activity. The authors evaluate gender-based publishing characteristics in three international plastic surgery journals. A retrospective review of all articles published in 2016 in the following journals was undertaken: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, European Journal of Plastic Surgery, Annals of Surgery, and New England Journal of Medicine. Data were collected on lead author gender (first or senior author) and differences in author gender proportions, by journal, by article topic, and by geographic location were evaluated. Overall, 2610 articles were retrieved: 34.1 percent were from plastic surgery journals, 12.8 percent were from the Annals of Surgery, and 53.1 percent were from the New England Journal of Medicine. There was a lower proportion of female lead authors among plastic surgery journals compared with the Annals of Surgery and the New England Journal of Medicine (31 percent versus 39 percent versus 39 percent; p = 0.001). There were no differences in female lead author geographic location in the Annals of Surgery or the New England Journal of Medicine; within the plastic surgery journals, there were differences (p = 0.005), including a lower proportion arising from East Asia (15 percent) and a higher proportion arising from Canada (48 percent). Within plastic surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the lowest proportion of female lead author (p < 0.001). The proportion of female lead author varied by article topic (p < 0.001) and was notably higher in breast (45.6 percent) and lower in head and neck/craniofacial-orientated articles (25.0 percent). There are gender disparities in three mainstream plastic surgery journals-Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, the European Journal of Plastic Surgery-and there are lower proportions of lead female authorship compared with the Annals of Surgery and the New England Journal of Medicine. Further research should focus on understanding any geographic disparities that may exist.

Three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) can objectively evaluate the shape of body surface, and has been widely used in the plastic and aesthetic surgery. The authors make a review of this technique in the breast surgery, which contains the introduction of 3D-SI, the accuracy and reproducibility of 3D-SI in breast symmetry evaluation, and the applications of 3D-SI in preoperative surgical planning, postoperative effect evaluation, and follow-up observation. Most of the literatures show promising results, indicating that this technique has good prospects in the plastic and aesthetic breast surgery. However, there is still lack of evidence of its superiority over other methods from multicenter large sample randomized controlled studies. Key words: Three-dimensional surface imaging; Breast; Surgical planning; Symmetry; Evaluation

CONSORT

The Belgian Society of Plastic Surgery was founded in 1955. The five founding members were Dr. M. Coelst, Dr. A. de Coninck, Dr. J. Polus, Dr. A. Fardeau and Dr. C. Steenebruggen. Dr. Maurice Coelst was the initiator and first president, and later became the first honorary member. The purpose of the Society was the scientific study of plastic surgery and related specialties, and the organization of congresses and conferences to promote the development of plastic surgery. From a very small group of five members, the Society has grown to a considerable size: 80 full members, 20 associated members and 75 candidate members. The Society also counts 12 honorary members and 16 foreign members. Full members are officially-certified Belgian and Luxembourg plastic surgeons who limit their activities to the domain of plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery and who have made significant scientific contributions to the activities of the Society. These activities have grown from informal evening meetings in the 1950’s to presently two full-day congresses every year, during which communications of high scientific standard are presented and discussed. Because of the expansion of plastic surgery, the name of the Society has been changed into ‘‘Belgian Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery’’ and comprises subchapters for the study of burns, microsurgery and aesthetic surgery. The Society sponsors a two-yearly prize, which is attributed to a personal scientific study of exceptionally high standards by a Belgian or Luxembourg plastic surgeon or trainee. The Society also sponsors the activities of the Collegium Chirurgicum Plasticum Belgicum. This Collegium organizes teaching days and yearly examinations for all plastic surgery trainees on a national scale. Successfully passing these evaluations has become a prerequisite for obtaining certification as a specialist in plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery. Together with a training of 6 years: 2 years of basic general surgery and 4 years of plastic surgery in one of the seven certified training centers in Belgium and Luxembourg,this system ensures a very high standard of specialization in plastic surgery. Many members participate very actively in many scientific societies in Belgium and abroad. The Belgian participation in EURAPS is very strong, and the prize for the best presentation has been awarded to Belgian plastic surgeons several times. The Society has a close relationship with its Dutch sister Society. Every 2 years a joint meeting is held, alternately in Belgium and in The Netherlands. In 2005 the Belgian Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery will celebrate its 50th anniversary with a 2-day Congress in Brussels on May 6 and 7. On the occasion of the Congress, a commemorative book will be published highlighting and illustrating the history of the Society. Finally, the Society is very grateful to Ian Jackson for allowing its members to fill an entire issue of the European Journal of Plastic Surgery.

Sir: After the initiative by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons to promote evidence-based medicine1 and to strive for high levels of reporting quality,2 it is current belief that randomized controlled trials are the key to guiding and helping clinical decision making. The broad field of plastic surgery with its subdisciplines reconstructive surgery, burn surgery, aesthetic surgery, and hand surgery often lacks a fair amount of published randomized controlled trials. However, to date, there is no comparative analysis on the recent developments of randomized controlled trials in reconstructive, burn, aesthetic, and hand surgery. Furthermore, reporting quality of randomized controlled trials was addressed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group first in 1996, and was updated in 2001 and very recently in 2010.3 The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials items aim to improve the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in full article and in abstract form.4 Using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials items, one can compare the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial conference abstracts, which was a second aim of this analysis. To analyze up to date, we decided to analyze various conferences rather than full articles, given the fact that not all randomized controlled trials presented as abstracts will find their way to a full article within the next 5 years. We analyzed 65 oral abstracts and 94 poster abstracts from the 2008 meeting of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons by two independent researchers. In addition, 152 oral and 100 poster presentations from the 2008 meeting of the American Burn Association were analyzed, as were102 abstracts from the American Society for Surgery of the Hand annual meeting. We determined the evidence-based medicine level of evidence for study design. Furthermore, the level of reporting quality according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations was determined with a maximum score of 17 of 17 points. We found that at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2008 meeting, 9 percent (5 percent oral and 4 percent poster abstracts) of presentations were randomized controlled trials. Reporting quality at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons meeting was 6.7 ± 1.2 for oral randomized controlled trials and 7.3 ± 1 for poster randomized controlled trials (p = 0.498; 95 percent confidence interval, –2.62 to 1.46) of 17 achievable points according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. At the American Burn Association Annual Meeting, 7 percent randomized controlled trials were presented, with 5 percent oral and 2 percent poster presentations. Reporting quality according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria was not significantly different for oral versus poster randomized controlled trials (7.2 ± 1.4 versus 6.5 ± 1 of 17 points, p = 0.552; 95 percent confidence interval, –1.78 to 3.06). We identified 10 percent randomized controlled trials at the American Society for Surgery of the Hand meeting. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting quality was 8.2 ± 1.4 of 17, somewhat higher than for randomized controlled trials presented at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons meeting. Our results indicate that the amount of randomized controlled trials presented either in oral or poster abstract form at American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Burn Association, and American Society for Surgery of the Hand meetings is still below 10 percent of all presentations. Given the fact that not every conference abstract will be followed by a full article, these numbers should be discussed. In 1996, Amadio and colleagues studied the rate of full article randomized controlled trials from volume 1 to volume 19 (1994) of The Journal of Hand Surgery. From 3107 articles, letters, and abstracts, they identified 25 controlled clinical trials and eight randomized controlled trials (0.26 percent).5 A 10-year analysis of publications in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, and Aesthetic Surgery Journal revealed a randomized controlled trial publication rate of 3.2 percent.6 A 16-year analysis of all articles published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery revealed only a 1 percent randomized controlled trial publication rate (11 of 1048 original articles).7 In Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the number of randomized controlled trials published increased from 1983 to 2003 from 0 percent to 7 percent.8 As far as reporting quality is concerned, all conference abstracts presented at American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Burn Association, and American Society for Surgery of the Hand meetings have plenty of room for improvement, with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement to be endorsed substantially. Karsten Knobloch, M.D. Uzung Yoon Peter M. Vogt, M.D., Ph.D. Plastic, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery Hannover Medical School Hannover, Germany

BackgroundAesthetic surgery has increased in popularity, reflecting the increased consumer demand. However, the variation in patients' ethnic and cultural beliefs has led to many challenges. Therefore, those who manage aesthetics should always listen and recognize the variability of cultural identities, desires, attitudes, anxieties, and uncertainties of the patient. Emerging from a diversity of cultures and its transforming trends, the scope of cosmetic surgery and its practice reflect not only the individual’s personality but also the culture as a whole. When counseling an individual, one has to recognize that even in groups of seemingly identical social or cultural standards, there are subtle differences in attitude.AimTo assess the perception of the local community about aesthetic procedures and to determine the possible factors influencing their level of acceptance through a randomized cross-sectional survey.MethodologyA community-based, qualitative, cross-sectional study was performed through an anonymous questionnaire that was randomly distributed among the local population. Questions with regard to the sociodemographic data were implemented, as well as the core questions, to assess the perceptions that are based on the modified Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery Scale (ACSS).ResultsA total of 857 participants responded to the study questionnaire. Their age ranged from 18 to more than 55 years, with a mean of 23.1 ± 12.9 years. Out of the total number, 630 (73.5%) were females while the remaining 227 (26.5%) were males. More than half of them were single (53.4%), and the remaining were married. Regarding perception, the highest score in percentage was for the interpersonal subscale (18.7 ± 7.9; 53.4%), followed by the consider subscale (18.2 7.2; 52%) and the social subscale (15.5 ± 7.9; 44.3%). The overall mean score was (52.4 ± 21.1; 49.9%). As for the procedure, the most intended was rhinoplasty (41.1%), followed by liposuction (32.9%), abdominoplasty (31.1%), face-lift (24.4%), reconstructive surgeries (24.4%), and lips filler (20.8%) while the least intended was gluteal flat grafting (8.7%).ConclusionsFemale patients are more eager to undergo cosmetic and aesthetic surgery compared to their male counterparts. Age did not have a major impact as a motive to look for cosmetic surgery.

Plastic Surgeonsʼ Performance during the February 27 Earthquake in Chile

The resident aesthetic clinic is a practice in which plastic surgery residents oversee patient care, thereby gaining autonomy and hands-on experience in cosmetic surgery. This study evaluates outcomes of resident-led cosmetic breast surgeries in a resident aesthetic clinic compared to attending-led procedures. A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who underwent cosmetic breast surgery at a single institution's resident clinic from 2012 to 2021. Resident-led cases were matched with attending-led cases, and comparisons in demographic information, procedure type, operation details, follow-up, re-operations, and complications were performed. Among 134 female patients at a resident aesthetic clinic, 27 (20.1%) underwent breast augmentation, 7 (5.2%) had mastopexy, and 12 (9.0%) received augmentation mastopexy, with a matched control group of attending-led cases. Residents favored silicone implants and inframammary incisions, while the attending preferred saline implants and peri-areolar incisions (p<0.001). For breast augmentation, complication rates for breast augmentation were similar between residents and attendings (18.5% vs. 11.1%, p=0.704), with identical re-operation rates (11.1%; p=1.000). In mastopexy, residents had no complications, while attendings had a 25% complication rate (p=0.467). In augmentation mastopexy, complication rates were 25.0% for residents and 33.3% for attendings (p=0.500), with lower re-operation rates in residents (0.0% vs. 16.7%, p=0.238). Resident-led cosmetic breast procedures demonstrate comparable safety outcomes to attending-led surgeries, supporting the efficacy of resident training in aesthetic surgery and highlighting the importance of resident-led clinics in surgical education. 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 .

In the last decade, there has been a noticeable increase in the interest in aesthetic and corrective surgery regardless of a patient’s age. Both aesthetical and practical considerations are a motivation for patients undergoing plastic surgery. The goal of this study is to analyze dependencies between welfare, self-assessment and body self-perception in patients that qualified for plastic and aesthetic surgical procedures. The study group included 164 female patients, of whom 124 patients filled out a questionnaire before and after surgery. The questionnaire included demographic data and scales such as the Body Esteem Scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale—SES, the Satisfaction with Life Scale—SWLS, the Flourishing Scale and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience—SPANE. The first hypothesis concerned the subjective assessment of body self-perception after the procedure. The results of the study confirm this hypothesis—female patients after surgery rate their body self-perception higher, which indicates a positive influence of plastic and aesthetic surgery that increased in the subjective assessment of 66 examined patients. Moreover, the study revealed a higher self-assessment after procedures. On the other hand, the results indicated that younger patients had a higher body assessment, but there was no increase in self-assessment. Except for breast augmentation surgery, there was no influence on self-assessment and life satisfaction improvement after other surgical procedures. In patients up to 48 years old, after surgery, there was a significant dependence between subjective body self-assessment and all surveyed forms of welfare. In the case of patients after 48 year of age, there was a relationship between life satisfaction and body self-perception both before and after surgical treatment.

Aesthetic breast surgery remains among the most requested procedures in plastic surgery. Since their introduction, breast implants have significantly evolved in terms of composition, surface, and shape. Due to the wide variability in patient anatomy and expectations, no single implant type can universally address all clinical scenarios. Therefore, achieving the best outcome requires a tailored approach. This study presented a decision-making model developed by the first author (P.M.). The model aims to obtain fully personalized outcomes using the Polytech implant catalog, which offers an extensive range of different breast implant types (such as microtextured, polyurethane, smooth, and lightweight implants), allowing tailored solutions to meet individual patient needs. The model is based on the "Akademikliniken method" by Hedén, a biodimensional method that promotes a nonvolumetric, proportion-oriented approach to breast augmentation. Supported by a comprehensive implant portfolio, it enables tailored surgical planning for primary augmentations, revision procedures, and combined procedures such as mastopexy. The structured algorithm guides surgeons in selecting the most appropriate implant based on individual clinical parameters. The decision-making model described provides a practical and adaptable framework to support surgeons in optimizing surgical outcomes. The breadth of the Polytech portfolio is key to delivering truly personalized outcomes: it not only enhances procedural precision by offering a wide range of tools and options, but also supports professional development through informed, case-specific choices.

Sir: Greco and Noone have recently published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery a very interesting article entitled “Evidence-Based Medicine: Reduction Mammaplasty.”1 We would like to congratulate the authors for their article and we want to direct attention to the evaluation of the patient’s point of view about reduction mammaplasty. In our recent study,2 we have shown how patients require more attention in presurgical consultations and that clear communication should be prioritized to ensure that the surgeon understands the patient’s expectations; thus, the use of patient-reported outcome instruments could help us to study the correct way to approach the patient’s expectations. The assessment of quality of life before and after surgery cannot be based on personal considerations of the attending physician, but must necessarily be expressed through objective studies, such as evaluation by means of the BREAST-Q.3 The BREAST-Q is considered worldwide the best instrument with which to quantify the patient’s perception before and after breast surgical procedures.4 At our Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery from September of 2011 to September of 2015, 156 consecutive patients who underwent breast reduction answered both preoperative and postoperative modules of the BREAST-Q. This study was approved by the ethics committee of our hospital, and each subject provided written informed consent before participating in the study. We administered the questionnaire 2 weeks before surgery and almost 6 months after surgery, and we performed a statistical analysis to compare preoperative and postoperative answers. Statistically significant results were observed between the mean scores on all four BREAST-Q scales: satisfaction with appearance of breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and physical well-being. In all of the patients, the raw score considered in this study was greater than or equal to 4 (Table 1). The concept of modern surgery has evolved from strictly a science that deals with a “disease to treat” rather than the “patient to be cured” to a psychosurgery, in which we aim is to provide the patient with the greatest degree of satisfaction in the shortest possible time. This concept is feasible only if the satisfaction of the patient and the improvement of quality of life can be assessed objectively from a scientific point of view.5 The point of view of the patient must be made scientifically valid and must be provable. The use of questionnaires is the only way to analyze scientifically and objectively the perception of the patient’s own body and that he or she would like to correct the defect. We think that the use of the BREAST-Q questionnaire should become part of the routine management of patients who are candidates for mammary and reconstructive surgical procedures and should be discussed and compared according to the needs of the patient.Table 1.: BREAST-Q Preoperative and Postoperative Modules in 156 PatientsDISCLOSURE The authors do not have any commercial associations that might pose or create a conflict of interest with information presented in this communication. No intramural or extramural funding supported any aspect of this work. Annalisa Cogliandro, M.D., Ph.D.Mauro Barone, M.D.Paolo Persichetti, M.D., Ph.D.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery UnitCampus Bio-Medico University of RomeRome, Italy

De la SFCPR à la SOF.CPRE