Aesthetic outcomes of inframammary fold recreation in two-stage, implant-based, breast reconstruction

SpringerPlus

Table 2 Patient and surgical factors affecting inframammary fold score

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor	p
Age
<50 years	7 (41.2 %)	3 (17.6 %)	4 (23.5 %)	3 (17.6 %)	0.91^a
≥50 years	7 (35.0 %)	6 (30.0 %)	5 (25.0 %)	2 (10.0 %)
Body mass index (BMI, kg/m²)
BMI < 22	6 (30.0 %)	8 (40.0 %)	5 (25.0 %)	1 (5.0 %)	0.96^a
BMI ≥ 22	8 (50.0 %)	1 (6.3 %)	4 (25.0 %)	3 (18.7 %)
Breast ptosis
Grade 1 (no ptosis)	9 (33.3 %)	8 (30.0 %)	6 (22.2 %)	4 (14.8 %)	0.02 ^†
Grade 2 (minor ptosis)	4 (50.0 %)	1 (12.5 %)	2 (25.0 %)	1 (12.5 %)
Grade 3 (moderate ptosis)	1 (100.0 %)	0	0	0
Timing of reconstruction
Immediate	10 (43.5 %)	6 (26.1 %)	5 (21.7 %)	2 (8.7 %)	0.23^a
Delayed	4 (28.6 %)	3 (21.4 %)	4 (28.6 %)	3 (21.4 %)
Postmastectomy radiotherapy
No	13 (52.0 %)	6 (24.0 %)	6 (24.0 %)	0	0.001 ^a
Yes	1 (8.3 %)	3 (25.0 %)	3 (25.0 %)	5 (41.7 %)
Type of breast surgery
Nipple-sparing mastectomy	5 (71.4 %)	2 (28.6 %)	0	0	0.008 ^‡
Skin-sparing mastectomy	6 (37.5 %)	6 (37.5 %)	4 (25.0 %)	0
Non-skin-sparing mastectomy	3 (21.4 %)	1 (7.1 %)	5 (35.7 %)	5 (35.7 %)
Type of breast surgery^b
Nipple-sparing mastectomy	4 (100 %)	0	0	0	0.19^‡
Skin-sparing mastectomy	6 (42.9 %)	5 (35.7 %)	3 (21.4 %)	0
Non-skin-sparing mastectomy	3 (42.9 %)	1 (14.3 %)	3 (42.9 %)	0
Overexpansion of TE (%)
<10	9 (42.9 %)	4 (19.0 %)	6 (28.6 %)	2 (9.5 %)	0.59^a
≥10	5 (31.3 %)	5 (31.3 %)	3 (18.8 %)	3 (18.8 %)

p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
TE tissue expander
^†Spearman rank correlation coefficient for breast ptosis versus inframammary fold score
^‡Kruskal–Wallis for type of breast surgery versus inframammary fold score
^aMann–Whitney U test for age, body mass index, timing of reconstruction, and radiation history versus inframammary fold score
^bResults for patients without a history of radiotherapy