Satisfaction and improved quality of life are among the most important outcomes for patients undergoing plastic and reconstructive surgery for a variety of diseases and conditions. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools for evaluating the benefits of newly developed surgical techniques. Modern PROMs are being developed with new psychometric approaches, such as Rasch Measurement Theory, and their measurement properties (validity, reliability, responsiveness) are rigorously tested. These advances have resulted in the availability of PROMs that provide clinically meaningful data and effectively measure functional as well as psychosocial outcomes. This article guides the reader through the steps of creating a PROM and highlights the potential research and clinical uses of such instruments. Limitations of PROMs and anticipated future directions in this field are discussed.

Increased spending and reduced funding for health care is forcing decision makers to prioritize procedures and redistribute funds. Decision making is based on reliable data regarding the costs and benefits of medical and surgical procedures; such a study design is known as an economic evaluation. The onus is on the plastic surgery community to produce high-quality economic evaluations that support the cost effectiveness of the procedures that are performed. The present review focuses on the cost-utility analysis and its role in deciding whether a novel technique/procedure/technology should be accepted over one that is prevalent. Additionally, the five steps in undertaking a cost-utility (effectiveness) analysis are outlined.

Introduction: Painful neuromas are a common postoperative complication of limb amputation often treated with secondary reinnervation. Surgical reinnervation include Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR) and Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface (RPNI), and can be primary and secondary. The aim of this review is to assess the effects of primary TMR/RPNI at the time of limb amputation on the incidence and intensity of post-operative neuroma and pain. Methods: This review was registered a priori on PROSPERO (CRD42021264360). A search of the following databases was performed in June 2021: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Unpublished trials were searched using clinicaltrials.gov. All randomized and non-randomized studies assessing amputation with a reinnervation strategy (TMR, RPNI) were included. Outcomes evaluated included the incidences of painful neuroma, phantom limb pain (PLP), residual limb pain (RLP), as well as severity of pain, and Pain intensity, behavior, and interference (PROMIS). Results: Eleven studies were included in this systematic review, and five observational studies for quantitative synthesis. Observational study evidence suggests that TMR/RPNI results in a statistically significant reduction in incidence, pain scores and PROMIS scores of PLP and RLP. Decreased incidence of neuromas favored primary TMR/RPNI, but this did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.07). Included studies had moderate to critical risk of bias. Conclusion: The observational data suggests that primary TMR/RPNI reduces incidence, pain scores and PROMIS scores of PLP and RLP. Going forward, randomized trials are warranted to evaluate this research question, particularly to improve the certainty of evidence.

Background: Data heterogeneity and methodologic errors hinder the ability to draw clinically meaningful conclusions from studies using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module patient-reported outcome measure. In this systematic review, the authors evaluate the quality of BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module administration in relation to the BREAST-Q version 2.0 user’s guide and the reporting of key methodology characteristics. The authors also describe a framework for improving the quality of BREAST-Q data analysis and reporting. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid HAPI databases to identify articles on the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module to assess postmastectomy breast reconstruction outcomes. The authors registered the protocol before study implementation on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/c5236) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data on mode of BREAST-Q administration, time horizon justification, and sample size calculation were collected. Results: The authors included 185 studies in the analysis. Errors in BREAST-Q administration were identified in 36 studies (19.5 percent). Appropriate administration of the BREAST-Q could not be determined in 63 studies (34.1 percent) because of insufficient reporting. Time horizon for the primary outcome was reported in 71 studies (38.4 percent), with only 17 (9.2 percent) reporting a sample size calculation. Conclusions: The authors identified important yet actionable shortcomings in the BREAST-Q literature. Researchers are encouraged to review the BREAST-Q user’s guide in the study design phase to mitigate errors in patient-reported outcome measure administration and reporting for future trials using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. Adhering to these guidelines will allow for greater clinical utility and generalizability of BREAST-Q research.