Ten-year follow up of cosmetic outcome, overall survival, and disease-free survival in endoscope-assisted partial mastectomy with filling of dead space using absorbable mesh for stage ≤ IIA breast cancer: comparison with conventional conservative method

Table 2 Percentage of satisfactory cosmetic results by each tumor location and method of operation at 2, 5, and 10 years of post-operative follow-up

Follow-up	Location^b	CCM	EAPM	P value^a
2nd year	A	64.0% (16/25)	75.9% (22/29)	0.341
	B	21.1% (4/19)	68.2% (15/22)	0.004
	C	71.9% (41/57)	79.0% (49/62)	0.367
	D	22.7% (5/22)	42.1% (8/19)	0.184
	Total	53.7% (66/123)	71.2% (94/132)	0.004
5th year	A	63.6% (14/22)	51.7% (15/29)	0.395
	B	21.1% (4/19)	63.6% (14/22)	0.011
	C	71.9% (41/57)	73.7% (42/57)	0.833
	D	26.3% (5/19)	37.5% (6/16)	0.478
	Total	54.7% (64/117)	62.1% (77/124)	0.244
10th year	A	61.9% (13/21)	50.0% (14/28)	0.407
	B	17.7% (3/17)	60.0% (12/18)	0.018
	C	71.2% (37/52)	73.6% (39/53)	0.781
	D	27.8% (5/18)	42.9% (6/14)	0.373
	Total	53.7% (58/108)	61.7% (71/115)	0.225

CCM conventional conservative method, EAPM endoscope-assisted partial mastectomy
Satisfactory results refer to total score ≥ 7 by method described by Al-Ghazal et al. [11]
^aP value was calculated by χ² test unless there were < 5 observations per cell in which case, Fisher’s exact test was used
^bTumor location was defined as; A (upper inner quadrant); B (lower inner quadrant); C (upper outer quadrant); D (lower outer quadrant)

ISSN: 1472-6874