Background
Patients’ expectations of an anticipated timeline of recovery and fear of anesthesia in aesthetic breast surgery have not been studied.
Objective
This study aims to assess patient anxiety, expectations, and satisfaction after Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways for aesthetic breast surgery and the progress of postoperative recovery.
Materials and methods
All consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast surgery between April 2021 and August 2022 were included in this single-center prospective cohort study. The ERAS protocol consists of more than 20 individual measures in the pre-, intra-, and postoperative period. Epidemiological data, expectations, and recovery were systematically assessed with standardized self-assessment questionnaires, including the International Pain Outcome Questionnaire (IPO), the BREAST-Q or BODY-Q, and data collection forms.
Results
In total, 48 patients with a median of 30 years of age were included. Patients returned to most daily activities within 5 days. Eighty-eight percent of patients were able to accomplish daily activities sooner than expected. The time of return to normal daily activities was similar across all procedure types. There was no statistically significant difference regarding postoperative satisfaction between patients who recovered slower (12%) and patients who recovered as fast or faster (88%) than anticipated (p=0.180). Patients reporting fear of anesthesia in the form of conscious sedation significantly diminished from 17 to 4% postoperatively (p<0.001).
Conclusion
Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways for aesthetic breast surgery are associated with rapid recovery and high patient satisfaction. This survey study provides valuable insight into patients’ concerns and perspectives that may be implemented in patient education and consultations to improve patient satisfaction following aesthetic treatments.
Level of Evidence IV
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
