Patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction: how much do timing and surgical technique matter?

Benefits of Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging During Breast Tissue Expansion: Literature Review and Case Series

Breast cancer results in up to 1.6 million new candidates for yearly breast reconstruction (BR) surgery. Two-stage breast reconstruction surgery with the use of a tissue expander (TE) is a common approach to reconstructing the breast after mastectomy. However, a common disadvantage encountered with the traditional breast TE is the magnetic injection port, which has been reported to cause injuries in patients undergoing magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Therefore this type of breast TE is labeled "MR unsafe." Recent technological advances have incorporated radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology in the TE to allow for the location of the injection port without magnetic components, resulting in an MR-conditional TE. This paper aims to review the information regarding the safety profile of TEs with magnetic ports and to gather distinct clinical scenarios in which an MR-conditional TE benefits the patient during the BR process. A literature review ranging from 2018 to 2022 was performed with the search terms: "tissue expander" OR "breast tissue expander" AND "magnetic resonance imaging" OR "MRI." Additionally, a case series was collected from each of the authors' practices. The literature search yielded 13 recent peer-reviewed papers, and 6 distinct clinical scenarios were compiled and discussed. Most clinicians find MRI examinations to be the state-of-art diagnostic imaging modality. However, due to the preexisting risks associated with TEs with magnetic ports, the MRI labeling classification should be considered when deciding which TE is the most appropriate for the patient requiring MRI examinations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Implant vs. autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies comparing surgical approaches in 55,455 patients

BACKGROUND

The choice of reconstruction type is of utmost importance in treating breast cancer. There are two major reconstructive pathways in this group of patients: autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare IBR vs. ABR.

METHODS

A review of studies reporting the differences between the procedures was performed. The MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, BIOSIS, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched in September 2021. The data concerning group characteristics, BREAST-Q scores, complication rates, length of stay (LOS), and costs were extracted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for randomized studies, while Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment for Cohort Studies was used for other types of research.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 32 studies (n = 55,455). We observed significantly better outcomes following ABR when it comes to esthetic satisfaction (mean difference [MD] -8.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.70, -6.33; p<0.001) and satisfaction with the entire reconstructive treatment (MD -6.56; 95% CI -9.97, -3.14; p<0.001). Both methods appeared to be comparable in terms of safety, while the complication rates varied insignificantly between the groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.06; 95% CI 0.71, 1.59; p = 0.76). ABR seems to be correlated with significantly higher costs (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.69; 95% CI -1.21, -0.17; p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

The results obtained from this evidence-based study will improve the understanding of the different clinical pathways that patients can be assigned to. The study emphasized the advantages and disadvantages of both methods.

Implant-based versus Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods.

Results

We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4-8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1-10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5-4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions.

Conclusions

Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.

Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review is to update and synthesize new evidence on BREAST-Q questionnaire’s ability to reflect patient-reported outcomes in women who have undergone breast reconstruction surgery (BRS) following mastectomy.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clincaltrial.gov were searched for relevant studies from January 2009 to September 2021. Any interventional or observational studies that used BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes in the assessment of BRS following mastectomy were included.

Results

A total of 42 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Three were randomized controlled trials and 39 were observational studies. Compared with pre-operative scores, there was an improvement in all BREAST-Q outcome domains following BRS including ‘satisfaction with breasts’, “satisfaction with outcome” “psychosocial”, “physical”, and “sexual wellbeing”. Sexual well-being had the lowest BREAST-Q score both pre-and post-operatively (37.8–80.0 and 39.0–78.0, respectively). Autologous BRS reports higher satisfaction and overall wellbeing compared to implant-based BRS. BREAST-Q has a higher and narrow internal consistency of 0.81 to 0.96 compared with other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; EORTC-QLQ, FACT-B, BR-23, BCTOS). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is the only PROM which allows patients to reflect on their care, surgical outcomes, and satisfaction collectively.

Conclusion

This review highlights the fact that BREAST-Q can effectively and reliably measure satisfaction and wellbeing of breast cancer patients after BRS. Comparatively, sexual wellbeing shows poorer outcomes following BRS and more longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the basis for these findings. Compared to other PROMs, BREAST-Q is reliable and specific to breast cancer surgery. Overall, BREAST-Q can help clinicians improve their quality of service, understand patient experiences, and may be used as an auditing tool for surgical outcomes.

Breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery - persistent pain and quality of life 1-8 years after breast reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term outcome of breast reconstructions with special focus on chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) in a larger cohort of breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study on 121 women with mastectomy and breast reconstruction after mean 2 years 4 months follow up. The mean time from breast reconstruction to the follow-up visit was 4 years 2 months. We studied surveys on pain (Brief Pain Inventory, BPI and Douleur Neuropathique 4, DN4), quality of life (RAND-36 health survey), sleep (insomnia severity questionnaire, ISI), mood (Beck's Depression Index, BDI; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), and a detailed clinical sensory status. Patients were divided into three groups: abdominal flap (Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap, DIEP; Free transverse rectus abdominis flap, fTRAM, and Pedicled transverse rectus abdominis flap, pTRAM), dorsal flap (Latissimus dorsi flap, LD and Thoracodorsal artery perforator flap, TDAP), and other (Transverse myocutaneous gracilis flap, TMG; implant). Clinically meaningful pain was defined ≥ 4/10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). We used patients' pain drawings to localize the pain. We assessed preoperative pain NRS from previous data.

RESULTS

106 (87.6%) of the patients did not have clinically meaningful persistent pain. We found no statistically significant difference between different reconstruction types with regards to persistent pain (p=0.40), mood (BDI-II, p=0.41 and HADS A, p=0.54) or sleep (p=0.14), respectively. Preoperative pain prior to breast reconstruction surgery correlated strongly with moderate or severe CPSP.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate to severe CPSP intensity was present in 14% of patients. We found no significant difference in the prevalence of pain across different reconstruction types. Preoperative pain associated significantly with postoperative persistent pain.