Studies indicate that physical appearance changes affect a significant proportion of breast cancer survivors, often leading to post-surgical distress. Both reconstructive surgery and medical tattoos are associated with patient-reported satisfaction, yet further research is necessary to understand their combined impact on aesthetic outcomes from the patient perspective. This study examined how breast cancer survivors evaluated the cosmetic and decision satisfaction of other patients who made various cosmetic intervention choices post-mastectomy. Breast cancer survivor support networks (n = 180) across 20 states agreed to share information about the online survey to their members. Participants (n = 251) rated the cosmetic outcome and decision satisfaction of images depicting other patients who had received mastectomy with three types of intervention: reconstruction alone, medical tattooing alone (flat closure), and reconstruction and medical tattooing combined. A factorial MANOVA produced significant within-subjects effects indicating participants consistently rated images of patients with a combination of reconstruction and medical tattooing highest in cosmetic quality, lowest in scar visibility, and highest in treatment decision satisfaction. The findings suggest that medical tattooing serves as a valuable complementary cosmetic intervention, with many survivors expressing interest and recognizing potential benefits once informed about the option. However, the study's limitations, such as the need for a more diverse range of patient images for evaluation, should be acknowledged. Future research should address these gaps by incorporating photographs of patients across varying demographics, including age, body weight, disease severity, and surgical procedures, to minimize bias. Despite these limitations, this study highlights the significant role that medical tattooing can play in enhancing aesthetic outcomes after surgery, particularly from a patient-centered perspective. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors https://link.springer.com/journal/00266 .