Abstract
Background: A submammary approach to implanting pulse generators is innovative and has yielded good aesthetic results in the current literature. It was our aim to make a comparison of patient device acceptance, tolerance, and complications between submammary and abdominal device locations in deep brain stimulation.Methods: Twenty-five and 28 patients were included in the submammary and abdominal groups, respectively. Our primary criterion was patient acceptance that was calculated using total Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) scores in each group. Secondarily, tolerance was assessed in the submammary group by means of a specific questionnaire.Results: Total FPAS scores from the submammary group [total FPAS: 77.1 versus 74.7, P = 0.29] revealed no significant difference when compared with the abdominal group. The same similarities were observed regarding the 4 subscales: return to function [16.3 versus 15.8, P = 0.53], device-related distress [22.0 versus 21.3, P = 0.31], body image concerns [9.2 versus 8.6, P = 0.14], and positive appraisal [17.8 versus 17.4, P = 0.58]. Tolerance was reported as good by the majority of the women from the submammary group. There was no evidence of higher infection rates in the submammary implantation (SMI) group.Conclusions: SMI is a satisfactory alternative to other deep brain stimulation locations. SMI is a feasible option for any young woman who is eligible for deep brain stimulation.