Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Pathways for Aesthetic Breast Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study on Patient-Reported Outcomes

There is an ever-increasing pressure to perform surgeries in the ambulatory setting, primarily to improve cost-effectiveness. This trend has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. Many studies have documented the safety and feasibility of ambulatory breast surgery in selected patients. Most of these studies have focused on outcomes, namely complications and readmissions [2, 3].

Understanding factors that enhance recovery and patient comfort, and increase patient satisfaction is a requisite for maintaining a successful practice. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS), also known as fast-track surgery (FTS), consists of interdisciplinary multimodal perioperative interventions aimed to optimize the recovery process, including reducing hospital stay or avoiding hospitalization. The benefits of ERAS protocols have been studied in various surgical subspecialties [4]. Although research aiming at reducing opioid consumption and hospital stay dates to the 1990s, the term “enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)” has not gained much attention in cosmetic plastic surgery [5]. Little research has been done regarding functional recovery of patients after aesthetic breast surgery [6].

Patient satisfaction after surgery correlates with the fulfillment of patients’ presurgical expectations [7]. Unrealistic expectations predict an unsatisfactory outcome [8]. Patients believe that anesthesia and recovery are relatively simple and, therefore, restriction of activities after aesthetic surgery is not necessary [9, 10]. Divergence between actual experience and expectations impacts treatment adherence and the patients’ satisfaction [11]. Only one study examining patient satisfaction with postoperative recovery was identified in a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes following cosmetic surgery [12]. This gap of knowledge may lead physicians to undervalue the aspects of recovering.

This study’s objective is to investigate a) patients’ expectations about recovery timelines as well as concerns before undergoing aesthetic breast surgeries without general anesthesia and b) to evaluate recovery and satisfaction after enhanced ERAS pathways for aesthetic breast surgery.

No patient dropped out, two were excluded due to operative revision, and one because of an incomplete questionnaire. Forty-eight patients with a median (IQR) of 30 (36–25) years of age were included in this study. Eighty-one percent of participants were women, and the median (IQR) BMI was 24 (26–22) kg/m². Comorbidities, medication, and ASA score are presented in Table 2.

Nearly half of all surgeries performed were breast augmentations. Breast reductions comprised 35% and gynecomastia about 17% of all surgical interventions. Mastopexy was performed in 23% of patients. Sixty-nine percent of the surgeries involved additional procedures such as liposuction.

The median operating time was 02:12 (IQR: 02:49–01:36) hours. Gynecomastia corrections were the shortest procedures (median (IQR) 1:42 (1:52–1:09) hours) and breast reductions the longest (median (IQR) 2:37 (2:58–1:52) hours). The median (IQR) duration of breast augmentation (including implant and fat graft only, as well as hybrid breast augmentation) was 2:14 (2:49–1:35) hours.

The average doses of administered alfentanil and propofol were, respectively, 0.31 µg/kg/min (minimum 0.02, maximum 0.83 µg/kg/min) and 4.43 mg/kg/h (minimum 2.27, maximum 6.21 mg/kg/h).

We believe this is the first study to assess patients’ anxiety, expectations, satisfaction, and actual recovery time after ERAS pathways for outpatient aesthetic breast surgery.

Patients returned to most daily activities within 5 days (Table 5). A retrospective study of data collected between 1982 and 1990 suggested that reduction in surgical trauma enabled patients to lift objects up to 20 pounds, drive a car, return to work, and lie prone on their breasts 24 h after submuscular breast augmentation and general endotracheal anesthesia [19]. In a prospective study of patients after submuscular breast augmentations, patients resumed driving after 5.4 ± 4.1 (min: 1, max: 21) days after surgery. However, no details were given on the number and type of combined procedures and the type of anesthesia [6]. The literature pertaining to exercise after breast surgery shows no substantial evidence of adverse outcomes due to early postoperative exercise compared with delayed exercise [20]. Recent evidence suggests that exercise, including bench press, 1 week after breast augmentation does not increase complication rates [21]. Nevertheless, additional studies may be required to determine the optimum risk–benefit ratio between overly aggressive and overly cautious recovery.

Our findings corroborate that with optimal perioperative protocols complex surgical operations can be performed in an outpatient setting [22]. Studies suggesting that the operation time predicts the fitness of discharge do not consider the impact of general anesthesia on recovery [23], although a correlation between the type of anesthesia and the quality of recovery has been demonstrated [24, 25]. Under the standardized anesthesia protocol described herein, the range of operating times (min: 46 min; max: 293 min) did not correlate with the recovery time within the first postoperative week (Table 6). This may be explained by the overall low doses of propofol and alfentanil and their relatively short elimination half-life (558 ± 218 and 275 ± 94 minutes, respectively) [26]. Patients required a median (IQR) propofol dose of 4.97 (6.21–2.27) mg/kg/h, in contrast to the concentrations used in total i.v. anesthesia of 9 mg/kg/h as initial dose and 6 mg/kg/h as the maintenance dose [27]. As for alfentanil, the median (IQR) infusion rate was 0.33 (0.83–0.02) µg/kg/min, as opposed to the dose used in total i.v. anesthesia of 100 to 240 µg/kg/min [27]. The higher doses of propofol and alfentanil typically administered in general anesthesia difficult recovery, especially in the first 48 h, and therefore are more likely to require inpatient hospitalization postoperatively. The authors have previously shown that patients after aesthetic breast surgery according to the ERAS protocol described herein are recovering sooner than expected after general surgery (drinking, eating, and voiding within a median (IQR) of 0:45 (1:19–0:25) h, discharge within a median of 2:40 (3:43–1:58) h [13].

The risk of thromboses in cosmetic surgery, including breast and face surgeries, abdominoplasties, and liposuctions, is estimated at 0.9% and peeks at approximately 1 week after surgery [28]. Early mobilization and recovery are decisive to prevent thromboembolisms. Most patients in this study walked in their house or apartment and climbed stairs on the day of the surgery, which would not be possible in a hospital room, especially after general surgery. A significantly lower incidence of thromboembolism has been observed in a large published series of patients undergoing elective plastic surgery under total intravenous anesthesia [29]. Discussion on the association of thromboembolic events with operative time must acknowledge the potentially confounding effect of general anesthesia. Pain, nausea, and drowsiness are the most frequent causes for delaying discharge [30]. Evidence has been presented that opioid-sparing anesthesia improves recovery without compromising patient safety and pain control [13, 25].

Seventy-one percent of patients required as much time to recover as anticipated preoperatively or less. Evidence has been presented that preoperative information describing the recovery process reduces the length of hospital stay [31]. Well-informed patients present faster time to activity and recovery [38], are more satisfied with their overall outcome [41], and consume fewer opioids [32]. Communication gaps and unrealistic expectations increase the risk of postoperative complications [33]. Patients provided with adequate information and details about what to expect regarding the process of care and recovery are more satisfied with their overall outcome [34]. We, therefore, assume that providing the information described herein during preoperative counseling can further enhance recovery, increase satisfaction, and reduce opioid consumption. Because of the amount and importance of preoperative information, we recommend two appointments for comprehensive counseling and the use printed and digital formats.

Since stress and anxiety influence pain perception, immune function, and wound healing, the ERAS protocol included numerous measures to reduce anxiety. Structured follow-up calls, 12 to 24 h after ambulatory surgery potentially reduces patients’ self-reported pain and anxiety, and improves safety and outcomes by increasing compliance while reducing the traveling times, infrastructure needs, and contagion risk during the COVID-19 pandemic [35‐38]. Having cellular telephone access has promising benefits for the patient–physician relationship [39] and is recommended to account for the risks of hematoma and the rare risk of lidocaine intoxication that may occur in the first 24 h after surgery [17]. Information and behavioral instructions have the potential to minimize stress and anxiety and improve postoperative outcomes [40]. Only six patients had a slower recovery than they had anticipated. Regarding the patients that recovered as fast or faster than they expected, the speed of recovery did not affect overall satisfaction (Table 6).

Preexisting mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse, have been noted to be important preoperative risk factors for adverse outcomes, resulting in increased likelihood of hospital-based acute care postoperatively [41]. Besides ASA III classification, which includes BMI ≥40, the strength of correlation and optimal cutoff values of patient selection parameters for outpatient care are unknown [42]. Since ambulatory surgery has many advantages, further studies are needed for appropriate patient selection (Table 7).

This study must acknowledge some limitations. This study did not have matched controls of patients undergoing a standard perioperative model of care or standard general anesthesia. However, the empirical comparison of the ERAS pathway with the author’s prior experience shows that recovery is much shorter and less painful, especially in the first 24 h with the protocol described herein. Besides, because ERAS has been shown to be more effective when compared to standard protocol, doing so was deemed unethical. A response bias regarding recovery expectations can be ruled out since only questions regarding the earliest time to shower and drive after surgery were occasionally asked. We only present data from one institution; thus, the findings might not be generalizable to other institutions. Additionally, alternative anesthetic methods might not be compatible with the findings of this study. Because of the heterogeneity of professional activities, enhanced postoperative recovery is more reliably determined by the return to comparable activities of daily living. To satisfy the call for the use of reproducible and validated questionnaires, studies may be inclined to use established and validated instruments, compromising sensitivity and consistency [12]. We have used the BREAST-Q questionnaire to evaluate satisfaction after fat grafting to the breast, acknowledging issues regarding the consistency of several items (“The position of your implants on your chest (too high or too low)”; “How evenly your implants are positioned in relation to each other?”). Factors associated with hospital experience (room comfort, cleanliness, noise level, food service, bathroom comfort, etc.) are confounding factors affecting patient satisfaction with the outcome [43]. Since this study only involved ambulatory surgery, the impact of hospital experience on patient satisfaction can be ruled out. Additional liposuction performed in 69% of patients may account for an overestimation of residual pain, despite a high comfort due to intercostal blocks. However, patients with liposuction did not have significantly more pain than patients without liposuction (rank-sum test; p = 0.788). For optimal sensitivity and consistency, a questionnaire addressing important issues on recovery after aesthetic breast surgery has been developed for this research. The questionnaire is provided in the appendix for critical appraisal of validity or reproducibility. Recall bias can be excluded.

Patients and surgeons often expect aesthetic breast surgery to be performed under general anesthesia and have moderate apprehension about sedation, intercostal block, and tumescent anesthesia. The anesthetic techniques described herein are associated with quick recovery and high patient satisfaction. The results help improve patient education about their recovery. Patients, surgeons, and anesthesiologists should be familiar with the risks and advantages of various anesthetic techniques to make the best decision for the patient. The results encourage surgeons and anesthesiologists to closely collaborate to offer alternatives to general anesthesia in aesthetic breast surgery.