Adherence to best practice consensus guidelines for implant-based breast reconstruction: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire survey

A Multi-Center Retrospective Observational Analysis of Three-Year Experience of Our Protocol for Prevention and Monitoring of Surgical Site Infections in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

With the rise in the mastectomy rate, the number of patients who choose to undergo postmastectomy reconstruction has been increasing, and implant-based procedures are the most performed methods for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Among the possible complications, the most feared is the loss of reconstruction. It can be related to several reasons, but one of the most common is infection of the implant, which can lead to prolonged antibiotic treatment, undesired additional surgical procedures, increased incidence of capsular contracture, and unsatisfactory aesthetics results, with a huge psychological impact on patients.

AIMS

The primary intent of this study is to analyze the status of infection rates at our institution and evaluate the effectiveness of our prevention protocol since its introduction. Secondly, we compared data of the surgical site infections (SSIs) after implant-based breast reconstruction at Trieste Hospital, where the protocol has been employed since 2020, and in another center, where plastic surgeons of our team are involved, with different prevention procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled 396 female patients, who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction, using definitive mammary implants or breast tissue expanders, with or without ADM (acellular dermal matrix), both for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1/2 patients. Patients treated at the Hospital of Trieste, with the use of the prevention protocol, were considered the experimental group (group 1), while patients treated in Gorizia by the same breast team with standardized best-practice rules, but without the use of the prevention protocol, were considered the control group (group 2). Infected patients were 5 in the first group (1.7%) and 8 in the second one (7.9%), with a global infection rate of 3.2%.

CONCLUSION

After the introduction of our prevention protocol, we faced a lower incidence of infection after breast surgery with implants or tissue expanders.

Wire- and radiofrequency identification tag-guided localization of impalpable breast lesions: iBRA-NET localization study

A national cohort ideal stage 2a/2b study comparing the safety and effectiveness of Wire- and RFID -guided localisation for impalpable breast lesions.

Localized Controlled Release of Kynurenic Acid Encapsulated in Synthetic Polymer Reduces Implant-Induced Dermal Fibrosis

Excessive fibrosis following surgical procedures is a challenging condition with serious consequences and no effective preventive or therapeutic option. Our group has previously shown the anti-fibrotic effect of kynurenic acid (KynA) in vitro and as topical cream formulations or nanofiber dressings in open wounds. Here, we hypothesized that the implantation of a controlled release drug delivery system loaded with KynA in a wound bed can prevent fibrosis in a closed wound. Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), and a diblock copolymer, methoxy polyethylene glycol-block-poly (D, L-lactide) (MePEG-b-PDLLA), were used for the fabrication of microspheres which were evaluated for their characteristics, encapsulation efficiency, in vitro release profile, and in vivo efficacy for reduction of fibrosis. The optimized formulation exhibited high encapsulation efficiency (>80%), low initial burst release (~10%), and a delayed, gradual release of KynA. In vivo evaluation of the fabricated microspheres in the PVA model of wound healing revealed that KynA microspheres effectively reduced collagen deposition inside and around PVA sponges and α-smooth muscle actin expression after 66 days. Our results showed that KynA can be efficiently encapsulated in PLGA microspheres and its controlled release in vivo reduces fibrotic tissue formation, suggesting a novel therapeutic option for the prevention or treatment of post-surgical fibrosis.

Wire- and magnetic-seed-guided localization of impalpable breast lesions: iBRA-NET localisation study

BACKGROUND

Wire localization is historically the most common method for guiding excision of non-palpable breast lesions, but there are limitations to the technique. Newer technologies such as magnetic seeds may allow some of these challenges to be overcome. The aim was to compare safety and effectiveness of wire and magnetic seed localization techniques.

METHODS

Women undergoing standard wire or magnetic seed localization for non-palpable lesions between August 2018 and August 2020 were recruited prospectively to this IDEAL stage 2a/2b platform cohort study. The primary outcome was effectiveness defined as accurate localization and removal of the index lesion. Secondary endpoints included safety, specimen weight and reoperation rate for positive margins.

RESULTS

Data were accrued from 2300 patients in 35 units; 2116 having unifocal, unilateral breast lesion localization. Identification of the index lesion in magnetic-seed-guided (946 patients) and wire-guided excisions (1170 patients) was 99.8 versus 99.1 per cent (P = 0.048). There was no difference in overall complication rate. For a subset of patients having a single lumpectomy only for lesions less than 50 mm (1746 patients), there was no difference in median closest margin (2 mm versus 2 mm, P = 0.342), re-excision rate (12 versus 13 per cent, P = 0.574) and specimen weight in relation to lesion size (0.15 g/mm2versus 0.138 g/mm2, P = 0.453).

CONCLUSION

Magnetic seed localization demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to those of wire localization. This study has established a robust platform for the comparative evaluation of new localization devices.

Does the Duration of Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Influence the Incidence of Postoperative Surgical-Site Infections in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction in Women with Breast Cancer? A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is an established concept to reduce the risk of surgical-site infections; however, the optimal treatment duration in prosthetic breast reconstruction is still controversial. This study evaluated a potential association between the perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis duration (≤24 hours versus >24 hours) and incidence of postoperative surgical-site infections in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

A descriptive, retrospective analysis of surgical-site infections after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients between January of 2011 and December of 2018 was performed. The incidence of postoperative surgical-site infections in patients with more than 24 hours of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was compared to patients treated for 24 hours or less.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients who met criteria were included. There were no relevant epidemiologic, clinical, or histopathologic differences between groups. Surgical-site infections as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria occurred in 25.8 percent. A risk factor-adjusted analysis by a prespecified multiple logistic regression model showed that 24 hours or less of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was not inferior to treatment for more than 24 hours. The upper limit of the one-sided 95 percent confidence interval of the risk difference was 9.4 percent (below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 10 percent leading to statistical significance). Risk factors for a surgical-site infection included obesity and postoperative wound complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found no association between short-course perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (≤24 hours) and an increased rate of postoperative surgical-site infection. This is of high clinical relevance because short-course treatment can help reduce side effects and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and prevent surgical-site infections as effectively as a prolonged perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis course.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10081873.

Physician-reported barriers and challenges to antibiotic prescribing in surgical prophylaxis: a structured systematic review

Objectives

The purpose of the study is to identify and analyse the barriers in surgical procedures where antibiotic dissipation is habitual.

Methods

Extensive literature search is carried out using different electronic databases (PubMed, Europe PMC, PLoS and Google Scholar) between January 2000 and December 2020. The articles were selected purely based on the inclusion criteria. Only qualitative and cross-sectional studies were selected to reduce the risk of bias. The JBI and AXIS checklists were used to assessed the quality of the enrolled articles. Data extractions were done by using a predesigned standardized data collection form.

Key findings

A total of 2067 articles were electronically retrieved but only 14 articles met the eligibility criteria. About 15 902 healthcare professionals (HCPs) with an average response rate of 64.7% were pooled for evidence synthesis. The majority of respondents (50%) discussed different barriers in their practice site for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) administration. Barriers were categorized into four themes: lack of guideline availability and knowledge, lack of adherence to guidelines, lack of guideline knowledge and adherence and physician perceptions or off-label practices. A total of 723 (56.3%) out of 1282 HCPs from nine different studies reported a lack of adherence to guidelines during the perioperative process. The majority of respondents in three studies, 318 (82%) out of 386 HCPs, reported that physicians’ perceptions play a crucial role in prescribing SAP during surgeries.

Conclusion

This study concluded that the barriers within the practice site play a decisive role in SAP optimization and therefore all HCPs are recommended to maintain local/standard guidelines and adhere to them while prescribing SAP.

Prophylactic antibiotic use in acellular dermal matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic antibiotics are used in acellular dermal matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstructions. However, there are no universally accepted guidelines regarding the best regimen. This retrospective, multicentre study was designed to compare the different prophylactic antibiotic regimens in these patients in three hospitals across two NHS trusts over a five-year period.

METHODS

Case notes and electronic records were reviewed for all patients undergoing acellular dermal matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstructions between January 2010 and December 2014. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens, duration of use, wound infection, implant loss, seroma and therapeutic antibiotic use was recorded. Patients were divided into groups based on prophylactic antibiotic regimen and actual duration of use. Intergroup analysis was performed using Stata 13.0. Implant loss due to infection was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients had 122 breast reconstructions performed over the study period. Four prophylactic antibiotic regimens were identified: single dose (n = 20), three doses (n = 17), antibiotics for five-seven days (n = 51) and antibiotics until drains removed (n = 32). There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between the various regimens in implant loss, wound infection, therapeutic antibiotic prescription or seroma rates. Based on the actual duration of prophylactic antibiotics usage, three groups were identified: prophylactic antibiotics given for one day (n = 26), antibiotics for up to one week (n = 76) and for more than one week (n = 13). Again, no statistically significant difference was observed in the groups for any outcome measure.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated no difference in outcomes between different prophylactic antibiotic regimens in acellular dermal matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstructions.

Protocol for Prevention and Monitoring of Surgical Site Infections in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Preliminary Results

Surgical site infection in implant-based breast reconstruction is a complication with variable incidence reported in the literature. Due to potential loss of implant and reconstruction, it can have a strong psychological impact on patients. Background and objectives: This study aimed primarily at analyzing the current status of the surgical site infection (SSI), (type, time of onset, clinical presentation, pathogens and management) in patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction at our Breast Unit. Secondarily, we wanted to establish whether introduction of a new, updated evidence-based protocol for infection prevention can reduce SSI in implant-based breast reconstruction. Materials and Methods: A single-center retrospective study was performed primarily to evaluate the incidence and features of SSI after implant-based breast reconstruction from 2007 to 2020. In June 2020, a protocol for prevention of SSI in implant-based breast reconstruction was introduced in clinical practice. Secondarily, a data analysis of all patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction in compliance with this protocol was performed after preliminarily assessing its efficacy. Results: 756 women were evaluated after mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction for breast cancer. A total of 26 surgical site infections were detected. The annual incidence of SSI decreased over time (range 0-11.76%). Data relating to infections' features, involved pathogens and implemented treatments were obtained. Since the introduction of the protocol, 22 patients have been evaluated, for a total of 29 implants. No early infections occurred. Conclusions: Surgical site infection rates at our Breast Unit are comparable to those reported in the literature. The SSI rates have shown a decreasing trend over the years. No SSI has occurred since the introduction of the prevention protocol for surgical site infection in June 2020.

Plastic Surgery Complications: A Review for Emergency Clinicians

The number of aesthetic surgical procedures performed in the United States is increasing rapidly. Over 1.5 million surgical procedures and over three million nonsurgical procedures were performed in 2015 alone. Of these, the most common procedures included surgeries of the breast and abdominal wall, specifically implants, liposuction, and subcutaneous injections. Emergency clinicians may be tasked with the management of postoperative complications of cosmetic surgeries including postoperative infections, thromboembolic events, skin necrosis, hemorrhage, pulmonary edema, fat embolism syndrome, bowel cavity perforation, intra-abdominal injury, local seroma formation, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity. This review provides several guiding principles for management of acute complications. Understanding these complications and approach to their management is essential to optimizing patient care.

A scoring system for 3D surface images of breast reconstruction developed using the Delphi consensus process

Introduction

Evaluation of aesthetics after breast reconstruction is challenging. In the absence of an objective measurement, panel assessment is widely adopted. Heterogeneity of scales and poor internal consistency make comparison difficult. Development and validation of an expert panel scale using a Delphi consensus process is described. It was designed specifically for use as the gold standard for development of an objective evaluation tool using 3-Dimensional Surface Imaging (3D-SI).

Materials and methods

20 items relating to aesthetic assessment were identified for consideration in the Delphi consensus process. Items were selected for inclusion in the definitive panel scale by iterative rounds of voting according to importance, consensus discussion, and a final vote. The Delphi-derived scale was tested on a clinical research series for intra- and inter-panellist, and intra-panel reliability, and correlation with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

Results

61 surgeons participated in the Delphi process. Oncoplastic and plastic surgeons were represented. The Delphi-derived scale included symmetry, volume, shape, position of breast mound, nipple position, and a global score. Intra-panellist reliability ranged from poor to almost perfect (wκ<0to0.86), inter-rater reliability was fair (ICC range 0.4–0.5) for individual items and good (ICC0.6) for the global score, intra-panel reliability was moderate to substantial (wκ0.4–0.7), and correlation with PROMs was moderate (r = 0.5p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The Delphi-derived panel evaluation is at least as good as other scales in the literature and has been developed specifically to provide expert evaluation of aesthetics after breast reconstruction. The logistical constraints of panel assessment remain, reinforcing the need to develop an objective evaluation method.

•

Aesthetic outcome has well described influence on long term quality of life

•

Many scoring systems exist, each with methodological flaws.

•

A Delphi consensus process was used to derive a contemporary panel scoring system for expert aesthetic evaluation

•

The scoring system was tested and performed well on a series of images of women who have undergone breast reconstruction

Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer guidelines in Europe: a systematic literature review

Purpose

Clinical guidelines’ (CGs) adherence supports high-quality care. However, healthcare providers do not always comply with CGs recommendations. This systematic literature review aims to assess the extent of healthcare providers’ adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe and to identify the factors that impact on healthcare providers’ adherence.

Methods

We searched for systematic reviews and quantitative or qualitative primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase up to May 2019. The eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by a second author. We conducted a narrative synthesis attending to the modality of the healthcare process, methods to measure adherence, the scope of the CGs, and population characteristics.

Results

Out of 8137 references, we included 41 primary studies conducted in eight European countries. Most followed a retrospective cohort design (19/41; 46%) and were at low or moderate risk of bias. Adherence for overall breast cancer care process (from diagnosis to follow-up) ranged from 54 to 69%; for overall treatment process [including surgery, chemotherapy (CT), endocrine therapy (ET), and radiotherapy (RT)] the median adherence was 57.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 38.8–67.3%), while for systemic therapy (CT and ET) it was 76% (IQR 68–77%). The median adherence for the processes assessed individually was higher, ranging from 74% (IQR 10–80%), for the follow-up, to 90% (IQR 87–92.5%) for ET. Internal factors that potentially impact on healthcare providers’ adherence were their perceptions, preferences, lack of knowledge, or intentional decisions.

Conclusions

A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients are not receiving CGs-recommended care. Healthcare providers’ adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe has room for improvement in almost all care processes. CGs development and implementation processes should address the main factors that influence healthcare providers' adherence, especially patient-related ones.

Registration:

PROSPERO (CRD42018092884).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05657-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Perceived barriers to randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction: obstacle to trial initiation or opportunity to resolve? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed breast reconstruction technique worldwide but the technique is evolving rapidly. High-quality evidence is needed to support practice. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence but can be challenging to conduct. iBRA is a four-phased study which aimed to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of an RCT in IBBR. In phase 3, the randomisation acceptability study, an electronic survey and qualitative interviews were conducted to explore professionals' perceptions of future trials in IBBR. Findings from the interviews are presented here.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 31 health professionals (HPs) who completed the survey to explore their attitudes to the feasibility of potential RCTs in more detail. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently until data saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Almost all HPs acknowledged the need for better evidence to support the practice of IBBR and most identified RCTs as generating the highest-quality evidence. Despite highlighting potential challenges, most participants supported the need for an RCT in IBBR. A minority, however, were strongly opposed to a future trial. The opposition and challenges identified centred around three key themes; (i) limited understanding of pragmatic study design and the value of randomisation in minimising bias; (ii) clinician and patient equipoise and (iii) aspects of surgical culture and training that were not supportive of RCTs.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for well-designed, large-scale RCTs to support the current practice of IBBR but barriers to their acceptability are evident. The perceived barriers to RCTs in breast reconstruction identified in this study are not insurmountable and have previously been overcome in other similar surgical trials. This may represent an opportunity, not only to establish the evidence base for IBBR, but also to improve engagement in RCTs in breast surgery in general to ultimately improve outcomes for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN37664281.

Efficacy and safety of two post-operative drains: results of a prospectively randomized clinical study in breast cancer patients after breast conserving surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of two post-operative drains in breast cancer patients after breast conserving surgery.

METHODS

This was a prospectively randomized comparative study of two drains investigated in breast cancer patients after breast conserving therapy. The Redon drain ends in a tip with 28 double perforations while the Quadrain drain features 4 flexible flaps of about 0.15 m length. The drains cost 0.28 € and 3.54 €, respectively. Primary target parameter was the duration of the drains staying in the surgical site. Secondary target parameters were pain post-surgery, seroma volume, final cosmetic result and surgical site infections.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were randomized, 47 and 41 received the Redon drain and the Quadrain drain, respectively. The mean duration of the drains staying in the surgical site was not different between the Redon and the Quadrain drain, 42.6 h (± 25.8 h) and 50.1 h (± 28.5 h), respectively (p = 0.1959). The post-operative pain score, seroma size, cosmetic result and surgical site infections were not different for both systems.

CONCLUSION

The Redon drain and the new Quadrain drain were not significantly different with respect to duration in the surgical site, post-operative pain, seroma volume and cosmetic result.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection).

INTERPRETATION

Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.