MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141705460 · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.03.008

Chronic pain in women after breast augmentation: Prevalence, predictive factors and quality of life

2009· letter· en· W2141705460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Niek van Elk, Monique A. H. Steegers, Leo‐Peter van der Weij, Andrea W.M. Evers, Ed H. M. Hartman, O.H.G. Wilder‐Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChronic painQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyBreast cancerMcGill Pain QuestionnaireSurgeryInternal medicineCancerVisual analogue scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain is a common complaint after surgery (Macrae, 2001; Kehlet et al., 2006). Because little is known about chronic pain after cosmetic surgery we investigated the prevalence of chronic pain after breast augmentation, tried to identify possible characteristics of patients developing chronic pain, measured cosmetic satisfaction after surgery and determined quality of life. We performed a retrospective, mono-center study and used a questionnaire which included questions about presence of pain, biometric characteristics, a cosmetic satisfaction VAS, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the RAND-36 Health Survey and we contacted 494 female patients who underwent breast augmentation from 2002 to 2005. We defined chronic post-surgery pain, according to the International Association for the Study of Pain, as “persisting continuous or intermittent pain for more than 3months after surgery and different from the preoperative pain” (IASP, 1986). The unpaired Student's T-test and ANOVA were used for intergroup comparisons. We received 317 questionnaires (64%) of which 265 were complete and suitable for analysis (54%) with a mean follow-up of 27months (SD±10months). We found a point prevalence of 25% for chronic pain and a cumulative prevalence of 31%. Three smaller studies showed similar results: 38% (Wallace et al., 1996), 13% (Romundstad et al., 2006) and 18% (Hölmich et al., 2007) of patients reported chronic breast pain after prosthetic breast augmentation. Patients with chronic pain were younger (p=0.008) and smaller (p=0.016). Reported cosmetic satisfaction was less in patients with chronic pain (p<0.001). Of the patients with chronic pain 9% reported a VAS for pain of ≥50mm. Reported quality of life was inferior in patients with chronic pain vs. patients without pain (p<0.05) regarding physical and social functioning, physical limitations and mental health. See Table 1 for full results. This large scale investigation shows that chronic pain is a common complaint after breast augmentation. Predictive factors for chronic pain are young age and smaller body height. Cosmetic satisfaction and quality of life are less in patients with chronic pain after breast augmentation compared to patients without chronic pain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207