Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial

A Long-term Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Matrix for Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction following Risk-reducing Mastectomy

Background

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are sometimes used in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBR), but long-term ADM-related evaluations are scarce. In this study, we evaluated early and late complications and patient-related outcomes (PROs) over an 8-year postoperative period in women who had undergone immediate IBR following risk-reducing mastectomy with bovine ADM (SurgiMend).

Methods

This prospective observational single-center analysis involved 34 women at high risk for breast carcinoma. Complications were prospectively recorded during the first year, followed by 4 years of postoperative retrospective chart reviews. Long-term evaluations were done using a questionnaire. Preoperative, 1 year, and 5- to 8-year postoperative PRO assessments were obtained based on results from the BREAST-Q questionnaire.

Results

In 56 breasts, complications after a mean of 12.4 months follow-up included implant loss (7.1%), implant change (1.8%), hematoma (7.1%), breast redness (41.1%), and seroma (8.9%). Most breasts (80.3%) were graded Baker I/II, which indicated a low capsular contracture incidence. After a mean of 6.9 years, the total implant explantation rate was 33.9%, and the revision surgery rate was 21.4%. Two cases of breast cancer were reported during the long-term evaluation. BREAST-Q results indicated significantly decreased satisfaction with outcome (P = 0.024). A positive trend regarding psychosocial well-being and declining trend regarding satisfaction with both breast physical- and sexual well-being parameters were reported.

Conclusions

The observed complication rates agree with previous findings concerning ADM-assisted IBR. A high demand for revision surgery exists, and PROs remain relatively stable over time.

Impact of Tissue Expander Surface Texture on Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction Outcomes: A Combined Analysis

BACKGROUND

With ongoing investigations of the impact of device texturing on breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), studies have begun comparing complication profiles of tissue expanders. However, there is a paucity of timing and severity data of complications. The aim of this study was to provide a comparative survival analysis of postoperative complications between smooth (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs) in breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A single-institution experience with tissue expander breast reconstruction was reviewed for complications up to 1 year after second-stage reconstruction from 2014 to 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operation-related variables, and complications were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazard models, and a consensus-based ordinal logistic regression model were used to compare complication profiles.

RESULTS

Of 919 total patients, 600 (65.3%) received TTEs and 319 (34.7%) received STEs. There was increased risk of infection ( P < 0.0001), seroma ( P = 0.046), expander malposition ( P < 0.0001), and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.019) in STEs compared with TTEs. However, there was also a decreased risk of capsular contracture ( P = 0.005) in STEs compared with TTEs. Failure of breast reconstruction ( P < 0.001) and wound dehiscence ( P = 0.018) occurred significantly earlier in STEs compared with TTEs. Predictors for significantly higher severity complications included the following: smooth tissue expander use ( P = 0.007), shorter time to complication ( P < 0.0001), higher body mass index ( P = 0.005), smoking history ( P = 0.025), and nipple-sparing mastectomy ( P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the timing and severity of complications contribute to the safety profiles of tissue expanders. STEs are associated with increased odds of higher severity and earlier complications. Therefore, tissue expander selection may depend on underlying risk factors and severity predictors.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery is emerging as the primary surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, mesh use remains controversial in implant breast reconstruction surgery, especially in terms of how to select the ideal mesh. Our aim is to elaborate relevant prognosis in the mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library searches. Extracted data included study type, basic characteristics, mesh information, complications, etc. We analyzed the included cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that reported mesh-related implant breast reconstruction complications and breast quality scale scores.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies including 7475 subjects were included. The results showed that the overall complication rate was 2.07 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (risk ratio [RR]: 2.07, 95% CI 1.14-3.78). The risk of seroma was 4.50 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (RR: 4.50, 95% CI 2.27-8.95). In terms of comparing breast quality scale scores, the mesh group had scores that were 1.49 (95% CI 0.19-2.78) higher than the non-mesh group for "physical well-being" and 2.05 (95% CI 0.08-4.02) higher for "sexual well-being."

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that the risk of total complications was higher with biological mesh than with synthetic mesh in implant breast reconstruction surgery. Based on short-term cost, healthcare burden, and healthcare benefits, synthetic meshes are superior to biological meshes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 www.springer.com/00266 .

Single-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix after Breast Cancer: Comparative Study and Evaluation of Breast Reconstruction Outcomes

We evaluate postoperative complications, aesthetic results and satisfaction outcomes in patients with breast cancer after intervening with a skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy with an immediate prosthetic reconstruction with or without a biological mesh. Patients with multifocal breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ with an indication for a mastectomy and cT2 tumors with no response to primary systemic treatment were included, whereas patients aged >75 years, with inflammatory carcinoma, and severe circulatory disorders were excluded. Patients in the control group were reconstructed using a prosthesis, whereas the study group included patients reconstructed using a prosthesis and biological acellular porcine dermal mesh (Strattice™). In both groups, the result was assessed using the BREAST-Q instrument. A total of 51 patients (62 intervened breasts) were included in the study group and 38 patients (41 intervened breasts) in the control group. Implant loss and removal occurred in three patients in the study group (5.9%) and nine patients in the control group (24.3%; p = 0.030). Infections appeared in three patients in the study group (4.8%) and three patients in the control group (7.3%; p = 1.00). Skin necrosis appeared in 5 patients in the study group (12.2%) and 11 patients in the control group (21.6%; p = 0.367). Seroma appeared in five patients in the study group (12.2%) and five patients in the control group (8.1%; p = 0.514). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is a comparison between both groups regarding "satisfaction with breasts after surgery" (p = 0.026), "sexual well-being after intervention" (p = 0.010) and "satisfaction with the information received" (p = 0.049). We have noted a statistically significant decrease in implant loss in women receiving an implant with a biological mesh. A higher satisfaction was observed in patients reconstructed using Strattice™, with statistically significant differences in three items.

Less is more? One-stage versus two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Most breast reconstructions are implant-based and can be performed either in a one-stage, direct-to-implant or in a two-stage, expander-implant-based reconstruction. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the safety and patient satisfaction of the two reconstruction approaches.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on 27 September 2022 using various databases. Studies comparing one-stage and two-stage implant reconstructions and reporting the following outcomes were included: patient satisfaction, aesthetics, complications, and/or costs. Reviews, case reports, or series with less than 20 patients and letters or comments were excluded. Comparisons were made between the one-stage reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction groups. The data extracted from all articles were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 1381 records identified, a total of 33 articles were included, representing 21529 patients. There were no significant differences between the one-stage and two-stage groups, except for the costs. The one-stage operation without ADM had lower costs than the two-stage operation without ADM, although the use of an ADM substantially increased the price of the operation to more than a two-stage reconstruction.

DISCUSSION

Equal patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes, and complication rates with lower costs justify one-stage breast reconstruction in carefully selected patients. This review shows that there is no evidence-based superior surgical approach. Future research should focus on the costs of the ADM versus an additional stage and patient-reported outcomes.

A Scoping Review of the Application of BREAST-Q in Surgical Research

Background

Collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can facilitate cost-effective, evidence-based, and patient-centered care. The BREAST-Q has become the gold standard tool to measure PRO data in breast surgery. The last review of its application indicated that it was underutilized. Considering the evolution in breast surgery, the purpose of this study was to perform a scoping review of BREAST-Q application since 2015 and identify emerging trends and potential persistent gaps to guide patient-centered practice and future research in breast surgery.

Methods

We performed an electronic literature review to identify publications published in English that used the BREAST-Q to assess patient outcomes. We excluded validation studies, review papers, conference abstracts, discussions, comments, and/or responses to previously published papers.

Results

We identified 270 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Specific data was extracted to examine the evolution of the BREAST-Q application and examine clinical trends and research gaps.

Discussion

Despite a significant increase in BREAST-Q studies, gaps in the understanding of the patient experience remain. The BREAST-Q is uniquely designed to measure quality of life and satisfaction with outcome and care. The prospective collection of center-specific data for every type of breast surgery will generate important information for the provision of patient-centered and evidence-based care.

Direct-to-implant versus autologous tissue transfer: A meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The effect of immediate implant and autologous breast reconstruction on complication rates has been studied extensively; however, the patient-reported outcomes for these procedures during immediate, one-stage reconstruction has yet to be comprehensively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the patient-reported outcomes for immediate implant reconstruction with those associated with immediate autologous reconstruction to determine the advantages and disadvantages for each modality from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed between 2010 and 2021 was performed, and 21 studies containing patient-reported outcomes were selected for the analysis. A meta-analysis of patient-reported outcome scores was performed separately for immediate breast reconstruction using autologous tissue transfer and synthetic implants.

RESULTS

Nineteen manuscripts were included, representing data on a total of 1342 patients across all studies. The pooled mean of patients' satisfaction with their breasts was 70.7 (95% CI, 69.4-72.0) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 68.5 (95% CI, 67.1-69.9) after immediate implant reconstruction, showing a statistically significant difference in outcomes (p < 0.05). The pooled mean of patients' sexual well-being was 59.3 (95% CI, 57.8-60.8) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 62.8 (95% CI, 60.7-64.8) after immediate implant reconstruction (p < 0.01). The pooled mean of patients' satisfaction with their outcome was 78.8 (95% CI, 76.2-81.3) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 82.3 (95% CI, 80.4-84.1) after immediate implant reconstruction (p < 0.05). The results of each meta-analysis were summarized on forest plots depicting the distribution of patient-reported outcome scores from each study.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate reconstruction with implants may have a similar or greater capacity to achieve patient satisfaction and improve patients' QoL compared to those associated with immediate reconstruction with autologous tissue transfer when both procedures are available.

How Postoperative Infection Affects Reoperations after Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A National Claims Analysis of Abandonment of Reconstruction

Infection after implant-based breast reconstruction adversely affects surgical outcomes and increases healthcare utilization. This study aimed to quantify how postimplant breast reconstruction infections impact unplanned reoperations, hospital length of stay, and discontinuation of initially desired breast reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Optum's de-identifed Clinformatics Data Mart Database to analyze women undergoing implant breast reconstruction from 2003 to 2019. Unplanned reoperations were identified via Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Outcomes were analyzed via multivariate linear regression with Poisson distribution to determine statistical significance at P < 0.00625 (Bonferroni correction).

Results

In our national claims-based dataset, post-IBR infection rate was 8.53%. Subsequently, 31.2% patients had an implant removed, 6.9% had an implant replaced, 3.6% underwent autologous salvage, and 20.7% discontinued further reconstruction. Patients with a postoperative infection were significantly associated with increased incidence rate of total reoperations (IRR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.92-3.31; P < 0.001) and total hospital length of stay (IRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.48-1.63; P < 0.001). Postoperative infections were associated with significantly increased odds of abandoning reconstruction (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 0.081-0.11; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Unplanned reoperations impact patients and healthcare systems. This national, claims-level study shows that post-IBR infection was associated with a 3.11× and 1.55× increase in the incidence rate of unplanned reoperations and length of stay. Post-IBR infection was associated with 2.92× increased odds of abandoning further reconstruction after implant removal.

Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: a 5-year scoping review

Breast reconstruction (BR) aims to improve the satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) of breast cancer survivors. Clinical studies using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can therefore provide relevant information to the patients and support decision-making. This scoping review was conducted to analyze recent trends in world regions, methods used, and factors investigated. The literature search was conducted in August 2022. Databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for relevant English-language studies published from 2017 to 2022. Studies involving women with breast cancer who underwent BR after mastectomy and investigated PROs after BR using BR-specific scales were included. Data on the country, publication year, study design, PRO measures (PROMs) used, time points of surveys, and research themes were collected. In total, 147 articles met the inclusion criteria. BREAST-Q was the most widely used, contributing to the increase in the number and diversification of studies in this area. Such research has been conducted mainly in North America and Europe and is still developing in Asia and other regions. The research themes involved a wide range of clinical and patient factors in addition to surgery, which could be influenced by research methods, time since surgery, and even cultural differences. Recent BR-specific PROMs have led to a worldwide development of research on factors that affect satisfaction and QOL after BR. PRO after BR may be influenced by local cultural and social features, and it would be necessary to accumulate data in each region to draw clinically useful conclusion.

An updated systematic review of esthetic grading tools in postmastectomy breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We ascertained whether a validated esthetic grading tool for breast reconstruction had been developed and widely adopted since the last published systematic review on the topic from 2015.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review identifying all studies using a grading tool to assess breast reconstruction, using search terms associated with all types of breast surgery and outcomes research. Articles were assessed for patient number, validated scale use, assessor type and training, assessor blinding, assessment method, scoring system type, type and timing of reconstruction, and usage of corroborating scales.

RESULTS

Of 2809 articles screened, 148 met the criteria. Only 3 used a validated tool, the Esthetic Items Scale. Most used study-only tools (n = 111) or unvalidated tools (n = 28). The most used unvalidated tool was the Garbay/Lowery 5-subscale rubric. Unanchored Likert scales were the most common subjective tool; two-dimensional images were the most used medium. Surgeons, patients, and nurses were the most common assessors. Twenty percent of studies used corroborating scales.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of a validated esthetic grading tool for breast reconstruction, researchers continue to rely on unvalidated scales. The only validated scale available is used infrequently and only validated among physicians. A validated, reliable, simple grading tool with clinical and scholastic relevance is needed.

Should Acellular Dermal Matrices Be Used for Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy? Clinical Recommendation Based on the GRADE Approach

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) entered the market in the early 2000s and their use has increased thereafter. Several retrospective cohort studies and single surgeon series reported benefits with the use of ADMs. However, robust evidence supporting these advantages is lacking. There is the need to define the role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after mastectomy.

Methods

A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints, and establish recommendation for the use of ADMs for subpectoral one-/two-stage IBBR (compared with no ADM use) for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: the panel members suggest subpectoral one- or two-stage IBBR either with ADMs or without ADMs for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction (with very low certainty of evidence).

Conclusions

The systematic review has revealed a very low certainty of evidence for most of the important outcomes in ADM-assisted IBBR and the absence of standard tools for evaluating clinical outcomes. Forty-five percent of panel members expressed a conditional recommendation either in favor of or against the use of ADMs in subpectoral one- or two-stages IBBR for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. Future subgroup analyses could help identify relevant clinical and pathological factors to select patients for whom one technique could be preferable to another.

Does breast oncoplastic surgery improve quality of life?

Breast Oncoplastic Surgery (OS) has established itself as a safe procedure associated with the treatment of breast cancer, but the term is broad, encompassing procedures associated with breast-conserving surgeries (BCS), conservative mastectomies and fat grafting. Surgeons believe that OS is associated with an increase in quality of life (QOL), but the diversity of QOL questionnaires and therapeutic modalities makes it difficult to assess from the patient's perspective. To answer this question, we performed a search for systematic reviews on QOL associated with different COM procedures, and in their absence, we selected case-control studies, discussing the main results. We observed that: (1) Patients undergoing BCS or breast reconstruction have improved QoL compared to those undergoing mastectomy; (2) In patients undergoing BCS, OS has not yet shown an improvement in QOL, a fact possibly influenced by patient selection bias; (3) In patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, the QoL results are superior when the reconstruction is performed with autologous flaps and when the areola is preserved; (4) Prepectoral implants improves QOL in relation to subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction; (5) ADM do not improves QOL; (6) In patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy, satisfaction is high with the indication, but the patient must be informed about the potential complications associated with the procedure; (7) Satisfaction is high after performing fat grafting. It is observed that, in general, OS increases QOL, and when evaluating the procedures, any preservation or repair, or the use of autologous tissues, increases QOL, justifying OS.

Study on short-term cosmetic effects and quality of life after breast cancer modified radical mastectomy combined with one-stage prosthesis implantation

Background

This study investigated the reconstruction effect of skin-preserving breast cancer modified radical mastectomy combined with one-stage breast prosthesis implantation in female patients to analyze relevant factors and observe the effect of prosthesis reconstruction on short-term breast satisfaction, psycho-social functions, and quality of life (QOL) in patients with breast cancer after the operation.

Methods

Patients were divided into two groups based on the reconstruction effect (an excellent effect group and a good and general effect group). Patients' short-term cosmetic effect on the breast after breast cancer modified radical mastectomy combined with one-stage breast prosthesis implantation was prospectively followed up to analyze influencing factors. At post-operative 6 months, the breast satisfaction dimension, psycho-social dimension, upper limb breast health dimension, and surgical satisfaction dimension in the prosthesis reconstruction module in the BREAST-Q scale were used for follow-up evaluation.

Results

The excellent rate of prosthesis reconstruction was 91.3%. A significant correlation was observed among the reconstruction effect, implant volume, and number of children born by the patient (P < 0.05). The correlation with age, BMI (body mass index), operation time, nipple and areola retention, operation method, and incision was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). At post-operative 6 months, the Breast-Q score was significantly different in the overall breast satisfaction dimension and outcome satisfaction dimension between the two groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Breast cancer modified radical mastectomy combined with one-stage breast prosthesis implantation can not only fulfill patients' physical aesthetic needs but also positively affect their psychosocial behavior to improve post-operative QOL.

Psychosocial and sexual well-being in breast cancer survivors undergoing immediate breast reconstruction: The mediating role of breast satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore (1) the levels of quality of life (psychosocial, physical and sexual well-being) and breast satisfaction in breast cancer patients (BCP) after immediate reconstruction (IR), considering surgery reason and surgical technique, and (2) the explanatory and predictive capacity of psychosocial well-being on breast satisfaction, and of both on sexual well-being.

METHODS

This prospective study included 36 BCP who underwent IR between June 2006 and December 2014.

RESULTS

Highest levels of quality of life were found in psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being, with no statistically significant differences by surgery reason or surgical technique in any quality of life indicator or breast satisfaction. Psychosocial, physical well-being and breast satisfaction explained 56.16% of the variance in sexual well-being, where 44.67% was attributed to psychosocial well-being. In addition, breast satisfaction statistically significantly mediated the relationship between psychosocial and sexual well-being, independently of physical well-being.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the importance of IR in reducing psychological morbidity and preserving the quality of life and breast satisfaction. Furthermore, this research indicated that psychosocial well-being should be considered a useful personal resource for improving the sexual well-being of BCP undergoing IR both through its direct effect and the mediated effect of breast satisfaction.

Best Practices for BREAST-Q Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

BACKGROUND

Data heterogeneity and methodologic errors hinder the ability to draw clinically meaningful conclusions from studies using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module patient-reported outcome measure. In this systematic review, the authors evaluate the quality of BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module administration in relation to the BREAST-Q version 2.0 user's guide and the reporting of key methodology characteristics. The authors also describe a framework for improving the quality of BREAST-Q data analysis and reporting.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid HAPI databases to identify articles on the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module to assess postmastectomy breast reconstruction outcomes. The authors registered the protocol before study implementation on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/c5236 ) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data on mode of BREAST-Q administration, time horizon justification, and sample size calculation were collected.

RESULTS

The authors included 185 studies in the analysis. Errors in BREAST-Q administration were identified in 36 studies (19.5 percent). Appropriate administration of the BREAST-Q could not be determined in 63 studies (34.1 percent) because of insufficient reporting. Time horizon for the primary outcome was reported in 71 studies (38.4 percent), with only 17 (9.2 percent) reporting a sample size calculation.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified important yet actionable shortcomings in the BREAST-Q literature. Researchers are encouraged to review the BREAST-Q user's guide in the study design phase to mitigate errors in patient-reported outcome measure administration and reporting for future trials using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. Adhering to these guidelines will allow for greater clinical utility and generalizability of BREAST-Q research.

Single Institution Evolution in Defining an Algorithm for Prevention and Management of Severe Complications in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Complications including infection and wound dehiscence are major concerns for direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction. However, the risk factors associated with severe complications and implant salvage remain unclear.

METHODS

Retrospective study of all patients undergoing unilateral DTI breast reconstruction from 2014 through 2019. The risk factors associated with complications and prosthesis explantation were identified using multivariate logistic regression modeling and interaction analyses.

RESULTS

Among 1027 patients enrolled, 90 experienced severe complications, 41of which underwent prosthesis explantation, while 49 were successfully salvaged. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with larger implant size (p=0.003), use of bovine mesh (p<0.001), adjuvant radiotherapy (p=0.047), low plasma albumin (p=0.013), and elevated blood glucose (p=0.006) were significantly more likely to suffer complications. Adjuvant radiation (OR: 7.44; 95%CI, 1.49-37.18; p = 0.014) and obesity (OR, 4.17; 95%CI, 1.17-14.88; p = 0.028) had significantly lower rates of implant salvage as well as surgical site infection (SSI) and wound dehiscence, while mastectomy skin flap necrosis was not associated with device explanation. There were no differences in complication and explantation rates between nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomies. However, the combined impact of SSI and wound dehiscence added over fourteen-fold higher risk of prosthesis explantation (95%CI, 9.97-19.53).

CONCLUSION

Success in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is multifactorial. Larger implant size, adjuvant radiation therapy, diabetes, and malnutrition demonstrate increased risk of complications in the DTI approach. Surgical site infections and wound dehiscence should be treated aggressively, but the combination of both complications portends poor salvage rates.

Air versus Saline: The Effect of Tissue Expander Fill on Outcomes of Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, saline is used for intraoperative/postoperative expansion in two-stage alloplastic breast reconstruction. Recently, intraoperative expansion with air has been proposed, to reduce pressure on the mastectomy skin flap in the immediate postoperative setting. The authors examined whether the intraoperative tissue expansion medium (i.e., air versus saline) affected postmastectomy complications in two-stage prepectoral reconstruction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 87 patients (144 breasts) undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction at the authors' institution. Patient data were abstracted from medical records. Stepwise, multivariable-adjusted logistic regression using robust variances was used to identify predictors of postmastectomy complications. Statistical and power analyses were completed.

RESULTS

Of the 87 study patients, 29 (33.3 percent) received intraoperative saline fill and 58 (66.7 percent) received air fill. Demographic/clinical data were well-matched between cohorts. Median follow-up was 165 days, and average patient age was 46.7 years. Initial tissue expander fill volumes were similar between study cohorts ( p = 0.2). The crude association between air versus saline fill on overall complication rates suggested that air-filled tissue expanders may be protective (OR = 0.4; p = 0.03), and the suggested protective effect was maintained with borderline significance even after potential confounders (i.e., American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or higher, body mass index, diabetes, mastectomy specimen weight, smoking status) were added to the model (OR = 0.4; p = 0.05). In addition, fewer complications requiring salvage reoperation were observed with air-filled tissue expanders (adjusted OR = 0.3; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The medium used for immediate intraoperative tissue expansion impacted postmastectomy outcomes in patients undergoing two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction. The results demonstrated that air-filled tissue expanders were associated with fewer postoperative complications/salvage reoperations relative to saline-filled tissue expanders.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Complete Implant Wrapping with Porcine-Derived Acellular Dermal Matrix for the Treatment of Capsular Contracture in Breast Reconstruction: A Case-Control Study

Background

Capsular contracture (CC) represents one of the most common complications in breast reconstruction surgery, impairing final result and patients’ well-being. The role of acellular dermal matrixes (ADM) has been widely described for the treatment and prevention of contracture. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of complete implant coverage with porcine-derived ADM in preventing CC limiting complications. In addition, patients’ reported outcomes were evaluated in order to define the role of ADM in improving sexual, physical and psychosocial well-being and satisfaction.

Methods

42 patients who underwent surgical treatment of 46 contracted reconstructed breasts from May 2018th to May 2019th were collected in the two groups (ADM group vs. Control group).

Results

The ADM group showed lower rate of CC recurrence and a higher rate of implant losses and minor complications. A significant difference was observed in red breast syndrome (27.3% in the ADM group vs. absent in control the group) and skin ulceration rates (18.2% in the ADM group vs. 4.18% in the control group). As for patients’ perceived outcomes, the ADM group showed a statistically significant higher postoperative Satisfaction of Breast Scale score compared to the control group. In addition, a significant difference was observed in the improvement of Physical Well-Being of the Chest Scale and the Satisfaction of Breast Scale after surgery, in favor to the ADM group.

Conclusion

Complete implant coverage with ADM may reduce the risk of CC recurrence in breast reconstruction. An accurate patient selection allows minimizing complications improving patient well-being and satisfaction.

Level of Evidence IV

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 www.springer.com/00266.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications Following Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Biological Matrix-Assisted Direct-to-Implant and Latissimus Dorsi Flap

Background

Implant-based breast reconstruction is increasingly becoming the most common method of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in use today. As the traditional autologous reconstruction technique, latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is employed by surgeons for reconstruction after breast cancer surgery, including partial mastectomy, modified radical mastectomy, and others. The authors aim to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications between the SIS matrix-assisted direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction and the autologous LDF breast reconstruction.

Methods

Patients undergoing the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction or mastectomy with LDF reconstruction or partial mastectomy with mini latissimus dorsi flap (MLDF) reconstruction were enrolled in a single institution from August 2010 to April 2019. Patients were included for analysis and divided into three groups: those who underwent LDF reconstruction, those who underwent MLDF reconstruction, and patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI breast reconstruction. PROs (using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire) and complications were evaluated.

Results

A total of 135 patients met the inclusion criteria: 79 patients (58.5%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted DTI, 29 patients (21.5%) underwent LDF breast reconstruction, and 27 patients (20%) underwent MLDF breast reconstruction. PROs and complication rates between LDF reconstruction group and MLDF reconstruction group showed no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, BREAST-Q responses found that patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group had better psychosocial well-being, showing a mean score of 84.31 ± 17.28 compared with SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction, with a mean score of 73.52 ± 19.96 (p = 0.005), and expressed higher sexual well-being (69.65 ± 24.64 vs. 50.95 ± 26.47; p = 0.016). But there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for postoperative complications.

Conclusion

This retrospective study showed no statistically significant differences between LDF breast reconstruction and MLDF breast reconstruction. However, patients in the whole autologous LDF reconstruction group yielded superior PROs than patients in the SIS matrix-assisted DTI reconstruction group in the psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being domains.

Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with the use of biological and synthetic meshes in one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Biological and synthetic meshes were used to cover the damaged muscle and augment the subpectoral pocket in breast reconstruction. However, few studies have directly compared the effects of biological and synthetic meshes. This study analyzed postoperative complications and assessed the patient-reported outcomes with the use of BioDesign® Surgisis and TiLOOP Bra/TiMesh® in one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients undergoing one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction were enrolled in this study. Post-mastectomy breast reconstructions were facilitated with either Surgisis mesh or TiLOOP mesh. Complications were examined and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes were evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire (ver 2.0). The multivariate linear regression models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 79 of 116 patients (68%) received breast reconstruction with Surgisis mesh and 37 (32%) with TiLOOP mesh. There was no difference in complication rates between the two groups postoperatively. But patient-reported satisfaction was higher with the use of Surgisis mesh than with TiLOOP mesh (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reported no difference between the Surgisis group and the TiLOOP group in either complication rates or most patient-reported outcomes postoperatively. Yet the assessment of patient-reported satisfaction showed preference toward Surgisis mesh, a finding with a potential implication for mesh selection.

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.

Biological Matrix-Assisted One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications

BACKGROUND

Biological matrix-assisted one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) could improve the inframammary fold to achieve good esthetic results. However, whether biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yields better postoperative outcomes compared with two-stage IBBR remains unclear. We aimed to compare and analyze surgical complications and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire between biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR and traditional two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

From May 2015 to June 2019, eligible patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR or two-stage IBBR were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. PROs were measured with BREAST-Q version 2.0, which scored the health-related quality of life, satisfaction, and experience domains. Complications were divided into major complications (patients requiring reoperation) and minor complications (patients who could be treated in the dressing room). PROs and complications were compared between the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR and two-stage IBBR groups. A multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify the social and surgical factors that affected PROs.

RESULTS

At our institution, 124 eligible patients were recruited. Seventy-nine patients (63.7%) underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR reconstruction, and 45 patients (36.3%) underwent tissue expander/implant reconstruction (two-stage IBBR). Postoperative BREAST-Q version 2.0 was completed by 68 of 79 patients (86.1%) in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group and by 35 of 45 patients (77.8%) in the two-stage IBBR group. In the satisfaction-related quality of life domain, satisfaction with breast was 9.27 points higher in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group (p = 0.012) compared with the two-stage IBBR group. The multivariate linear regression analysis showed that implant volume (p = 0.031) and postoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.036) significantly influenced the PRO of satisfaction with breast. However, patients in the SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR group had a higher minor complication rate compared with patients in the two-stage IBBR group (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective study showed that although patients treated with biological matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR tended to have higher postoperative complication rates, this technique correlated with better PROs compared with two-stage IBBR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 www.springer.com/00266 .

Effect of Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) is established practice. Existing evidence validating ADMs proposed advantages, including improved cosmetics and more single-stage IBBRs, is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether IBBR with ADM results in fewer reoperations and increased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of women with primary breast cancer who planned for mastectomy and immediate IBBR, with a 2-year follow-up for all participants. Participants were enrolled at 5 breast cancer units in Sweden and the United Kingdom between 2014 and May 2017. Exclusion criteria included previous radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Data were analyzed until August 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated to immediate IBBR with or without ADM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary trial end point was number of reoperations at 2 years. HRQoL, a secondary end point, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures using 3 instruments from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

From start of enrollment on April 24, 2014, to close of trial on May 10, 2017, a total of 135 women were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 50.4 [9.5] years); 64 were assigned to have an IBBR procedure with ADM and 65 to the control group who had IBBR without ADM. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome. Of 129 patients analyzed at 2-year follow-up, 44 of 64 (69%) had at least 1 surgical event in the ADM group vs 43 of 65 (66%) in the control group. In the ADM group, 31 patients (48%) had at least 1 reoperation on the ipsilateral side vs 35 (54%) in the control group. The overall number of reoperations on the ipsilateral side were 42 and 43 respectively. Within the follow-up time of 24 months, 9 patients (14%) in the ADM group had the implant removed compared with 7 (11%) in the control group. We found no significant mean differences in postoperative patient-reported HRQoL domains, including perception of body image (mean difference, 3; 99% CI, -11 to 17; P = .57) and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome (mean difference, 8; 99% CI, -6 to 20; P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Immediate IBBR with ADM did not yield fewer reoperations compared with conventional IBBR without ADM, nor was IBBR with ADM superior in terms of HRQoL or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes. Patients treated for breast cancer contemplating ADM-supported IBBR should be informed about the lack of evidence validating ADM's suggested benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061527.

Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (OPBC-02/ PREPEC): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial

INTRODUCTION

The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) has motivated surgeons to develop skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/ NSM) for breast cancer treatment or prevention. During the same operation, a so-called immediate breast reconstruction is performed. The breast can be reconstructed by positioning of a breast implant above (prepectoral) or below (subpectoral) the pectoralis major muscle or by using the patients' own tissue (autologous reconstruction). The optimal positioning of the implant prepectoral or subpectoral is currently not clear. Subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is still standard care in many countries, but prepectoral IBBR is increasingly performed. This heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice is calling for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to guide treatment decisions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

International, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether prepectoral IBBR provides better QoL with respect to long-term (24 months) physical well-being (chest) compared with subpectoral IBBR for patients undergoing SSM or NSM for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. Secondary objectives will compare prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR in terms of safety, QoL and patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes and burden on patients. Total number of patients to be included: 372 (186 per arm).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval has been obtained for the lead investigator's site by the Ethics Committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2020-00256, 26 March 2020). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, independent of the results, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards for RCTs and good publication practice. Metadata describing the type, size and content of the datasets will be shared along with the study protocol and case report forms on public repositories adhering to the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04293146.

The frequency of medical reversals in a cross-sectional analysis of high-impact oncology journals, 2009-2018

Background

Identifying ineffective practices that have been used in oncology is important in reducing wasted resources and harm. We sought to examine the prevalence of practices that are being used but have been shown in RCTs to be ineffective (medical reversals) in published oncology studies.

Methods

We cross-sectionally analyzed studies published in three high-impact oncology medical journals (2009–2018). We abstracted data relating to the frequency and characterization of medical reversals.

Results

Of the 64 oncology reversals, medications (44%) represented the most common intervention type (39% were targeted). Fourteen (22%) were funded by pharmaceutical/industry only and 56% were funded by an organization other than pharmaceutical/industry. The median number of years that the practice had been in use prior to the reversal study was 9 years (range 1–50 years).

Conclusion

Here we show that oncology reversals most often involve the administration of medications, have been practiced for years, and are often identified through studies funded by non-industry organizations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08632-8.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Aesthetic Results after Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using Human Acellular Dermal Matrices: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational NOGGO-AWOGyn Study

BACKGROUND

With the increased use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs), the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes becomes more important.

METHODS

Patients who underwent an immediate human ADM-assisted, submuscular IBBR were included in this noninterventional, multicenter, prospective cohort study. Patients with primary reconstruction (cohort A) and patients with a revision surgery after capsular fibrosis (cohort B) were followed up for 12 months after surgery. Quality of life (EORTC BR-23) and patient and surgeon satisfaction scores (1 ["very satisfied"] to 6 ["not satisfied"]) with the outcome and the aesthetic result evaluated by 2 independent, external experts were assessed.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were enrolled in the study. The mean patient satisfaction score was 2.1 ± 0.8, with higher satisfaction in cohort B (p = 0.041). The score did not change significantly during the follow-up (p = 0.479). The mean satisfaction score of the surgeons was 2.0 ± 0.7; it was also higher in cohort B (p = 0.016) and showed no changes over time (p = 0.473). The mean aesthetic result was 2.2 ± 0.7. 92.9% of the patients completed at least 1 quality of life questionnaire. Body image and sexual functioning increased during follow-up. One year after surgery, the mean scores were 77.2 ± 22.5 and 44.7 ± 27.3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The level of satisfaction among patients and surgeons and the score of the aesthetic result were constantly high among patients after ADM-assisted IBBR. Higher satisfaction scores could be observed after revision surgery caused by capsular fibrosis (cohort B) compared to primary reconstruction (cohort A). Quality of life increased during the first year after surgery.

Optimal reconstructive strategies in the setting of post-mastectomy radiotherapy - A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A third of breast cancer patients require mastectomy. In some high-risk cases postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is indicated, threatening reconstructive complications. Several PMRT and reconstruction combinations are used. Autologous flap (AF) reconstruction may be immediate (AF→PMRT), delayed-immediate with tissue expander (TE [TE→PMRT→AF]) or delayed (PMRT→AF). Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) includes immediate TE followed by PMRT and conversion to permanent implant (PI [TE→PMRT→PI]), delayed TE insertion (PMRT→TE→PI), and prosthetic implant conversion prior to PMRT (TE→PI→PMRT).

AIM

Perform a network metanalysis (NMA) assessing optimal sequencing of PMRT and reconstructive type.

METHODS

A systematic review and NMA was performed according to PRISMA-NMA guidelines. NMA was conducted using R packages netmeta and Shiny.

RESULTS

16 studies from 4182 identified, involving 2322 reconstructions over three decades, met predefined inclusion criteria. Studies demonstrated moderate heterogeneity. Multiple comparisons combining direct and indirect evidence established AF-PMRT as the optimal approach to avoid reconstructive failure, compared with IBBR strategies (versus PMRT→TE→PI; OR [odds ratio] 0.10, CrI [95% credible interval] 0.02 to 0.55; versus TE→PMRT→PI; OR 0.13, CrI 0.02 to 0.75; versus TE→PI→PMRT OR 0.24, CrI 0.05 to 1.05). PMRT→AF best avoided infection, demonstrating significant improvement versus PMRT→TE→PI alone (OR 0.12, CrI 0.02 to 0.88). Subgroup analysis of IBBR found TE→PI→PMRT reduced failure rates (OR 0.35, CrI 0.15-0.81) compared to other IBBR strategies but increased capsular contracture.

CONCLUSION

Immediate AF reconstruction is associated with reduced failure in the setting of PMRT. However, optimal reconstructive strategy depends on patient, surgeon and institutional factors. If IBBR is chosen, complication rates decrease if performed prior to PMRT.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD 42020157077.

Immediate-implant-based-breast-reconstruction with two-stage expander-implant reconstruction versus one-stage-reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: analysis of patients' satisfaction

Background.

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the patient-reported outcome after immediate ADM-assisted implant- based breast reconstruction.

Material and Methods:

Patients underwent breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2019 have been retrospectively divided into group A (partial subpectoral implant and ADM and group B (expander/implant). For each patient we evaluated retrospectively postoperative complications and patients’ satisfaction.

Results:

26 patients from the case group and 40 from the control group completed the BREAST-Q. The incidence of complications in the cases was 18.4%, while in the control group was 20.4%. We found no statistical difference in most of the domains and in the mean score of the questionnaire (mean score cases=69.0±14.4 vs controls=68.4±15.7; p=0.888). A significant difference results only in the domains Q2a and Q2b, sensation of rippling.

Conclusions:

The use of ADM in one-stage reconstruction allows to perform breast reconstruction in only one surgery, with similar complication rates and patient satisfaction. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Breast and axillary surgery in malignant breast disease: a review focused on literature of 2018 and 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There have been fundamental changes in the surgical approach to breast cancer management over the last decades. The primary objective of achieving locoregional control, however, remains unchanged.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to strategies optimizing systemic treatment and radiotherapy, current discussions focus on improving the surgical approach to breast cancer. Especially in view of the increasingly pivotal role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy NAT/NAC (NACT), gauging the extent of tissue removal in the breast and the width of resection margins in breast-conserving surgery is highly important, as is the extent of axillary surgery. Although sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive patients always underwent axillary lymph node dissection in the past, this paradigm has been challenged in recent years. Targeted axillary dissection (TAD) has emerged as a new staging option in biopsy-proven node-positive patients who convert to clinical node negativity (cN0) after NACT. TAD combines the removal of the SLN and of the target lymph node marked prior to NACT. The accuracy of axillary staging both before and after NACT plays an important role for prognostication and multidisciplinary treatment plans, while its extent has significant effects on patients' arm morbidity and quality of life.

SUMMARY

The current review focuses on recent evidence regarding surgical management of the breast and axilla in patients with primary breast cancer based on a PubMed and EMBASE literature search for publication years 2018 and 2019.

Comparative study of patient outcomes between direct to implant and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction plays a central role in the outcome management of patients with breast cancer, particularly in terms of quality of life (QoL), which must be weighed carefully when considering the available surgical options. In the context of implant-based breast reconstruction, immediate replacement with prosthesis (direct-to-implant (DTI)) and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is gaining popularity, at the expense of the traditional two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with tissue expander (TE), and the literature suggests that patients tend to prefer interventions with "immediate" therapeutic efficacy and aesthetic satisfaction that obviate the need for further invasive surgery. We investigated this hypothesis by administering the BREAST-Q™ questionnaire to two groups of patients who had undergone the respective procedures.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional observational study of 192 consecutive mastectomy patients who received implant-based reconstruction, comparing health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), patient-related outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction in patients who had undergone immediate dual plane DTI with ADM (96) versus the two-stage submuscular approach (96). We also counted the number of surgeries required in each group to achieve a definitive outcome.

FINDINGS

Our study revealed no major differences in terms of QoL scores, with the two approaches being largely comparable. However, single-stage reconstruction seems to offer the additional advantages of better satisfaction with the care received, sparing the patient temporary body image dissatisfaction and reducing the number of surgeries required, thereby lessening the burden on the patient, the healthcare system and society as a whole.

Acellular bovine pericardium matrix in immediate breast reconstruction compared with conventional implant-based breast reconstruction

Background

Acellular Bovine Pericardium Matrix (ABPM) is a new material in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Few studies have reported on its outcome and complications worldwide and most studies were without a control group. Our aim was to compare its use in IBBR with the other two conventional implant-based reconstruction methods.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing IBBR from January to December 2018 was performed. Patients were assigned to the ABPM-assisted IBBR (group A), latissimus dorsi-assisted IBBR (group B) and two-stage IBBR (group C). Patients’ post-operative complications, cost-effectiveness and Quality of Life were compared.

Results

100 patients with 100 breasts were included in the study. No complications occurred in group C (n = 11). No significant differences were noted between group A (n = 44) and group B (n = 45) in terms of overall complications (9.1% vs 11.1%, p = 0.973). Group B had the longest operative duration (310.8 ± 62.3 min, p<0.001). The cost of hospitalization forthe three groups was $8051.3 ± 849.2, $7566.0 ± 1172.7 and $7896.5 ± 1762.2, respectively (p = 0.128). The postoperative Breast-Q scores  were similar across the three groups.

Conclusions

ABPM demonstrated acceptable complication rates, cost-effectiveness and quality of life outcomes when compared to LD-assisted IBBR and two-stage IBBR.

Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh

BACKGROUND

Biological and synthetic meshes may improve the outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) by facilitating single-stage procedures and improving cosmesis. Supporting evidence is, however, limited. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of biological and synthetic mesh on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of IBBR 18 months after surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR between February 2014 and June 2016 were recruited to the study. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients received validated BREAST-Q questionnaires at 18 months. The impact of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically relevant confounders, and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre.

RESULTS

A total of 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. Of these, 67 women underwent two-stage submuscular reconstructions. Some 764 patients had a submuscular reconstruction with biological mesh (495 women), synthetic mesh (95) or dermal sling (174). Fourteen patients had a prepectoral reconstruction. Compared with two-stage submuscular reconstructions, no significant differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures. However, patients undergoing prepectoral IBBR reported better satisfaction with breasts (adjusted mean difference +6.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.65 to11.61; P = 0.009). PROs were similar to those in the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2008-2009 cohort, which included two-stage submuscular procedures only.

CONCLUSION

This study found no difference in PROs of subpectoral IBBR with or without biological or synthetic mesh, but provides early data to suggest improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstruction. Robust evaluation is required before this approach can be adopted as standard practice.

Appearance characteristics of incision, satisfaction with the aesthetic effect, and quality of life in of thyroid cancer patients after thyroidectomy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the correlation between satisfaction with aesthetic effect (SAE) and quality of life (QoL) in thyroid cancer patients after thyroidectomy and identify the impact of appearance characteristics of scars on SAE.

METHODS

This prospective, single-centre, cross-sectional study from November 2018 to June 2019 enrolled 285 thyroid cancer patients three months after their thyroidectomy. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 was used to assess QoL 3 months after thyroidectomy, while the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) was used to assess the SAE of patients.

RESULTS

The mean PSAS score was 35.00, and the mean QoL score was 69.96. Correlation analysis demonstrated that PSAS was negatively correlated with QoL score. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that age, marital status, radiotherapy, surgery type, neurological deficits, and PSAS were independent risk factors with decreased QoL. Furthermore, correlation analysis showed that scar colour, stiffness, thickness, irregularity and length were positively correlated with poor PSAS. Scar irregularity and length were independent risk factors with poor PSAS.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that scar irregularity and length were independent risk factors with SAE, and poor SAE was correlated with decreased QoL in thyroid cancer patients after thyroidectomy.

Comparisons of Therapeutic and Aesthetic Effects of One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with and without Biological Matrix

Background

Biological matrix can provide coverage of compromised muscle and augment the subpectoral pocket in the one-stage reconstruction. However, few studies compared one stage implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological matrix. The primary endpoint of our study was to assess the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on BREAST-Q version 2.0 and analyze complications between SIS matrix-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and no-matrix-assisted IBBR.

Methods

This retrospective single-center study was conducted from May 2015 to April 2019, and we analyzed 155 patients who underwent one-stage IBBR with at least 1 year of follow-up. Seventy-nine patients underwent one-stage IBBR with SIS matrix group and 76 patients underwent one-stage IBBR without SIS matrix group were evaluated of PROs with BREAST-Q version 2.0 (from 3 different domains) and compared with complications. Complications occurred in patients were divided into major complications and minor complications.

Results

In the satisfaction domain, the mean score for satisfaction with breasts was 60.27 (17.71) in the SIS matrix group and 54.49 (14.76) in the no-matrix group, p=0.045. The multivariate logistic regression for postoperative complications in the whole series pointed out a statistical significance for age>40 years old (odds ratio 3.314, 95% CI 1.012–10.854, p=0.048) and patients with endocrine therapy (odds ratio 0.260, 95% CI 0.092–0.736, p=0.011).

Conclusion

Patients who underwent SIS matrix-assisted one-stage IBBR yield better results in PROs of satisfaction with breasts. Other domains and complications between the two groups had no significant difference.

Long-term outcomes of latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstructions: A single-centre observational cohort study with up to 12 years of follow up

INTRODUCTION

The Latissimus Dorsi Myocutaneous Flap (LDMF) is used in post-mastectomy reconstruction. This study has evaluated long-term (up to 12 years) surgical- and patient-reported outcomes from LDMF procedures.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis of consecutive LDMF procedures in two UK hospitals, performed between 2006 and 2016. Case notes were reviewed for indications and outcomes. Patients were sent the BREAST-Q^Ⓡ survey by post. Outcomes, including surgical adverse events, revision, and implant loss rates, were correlated with patient risk factors.

RESULTS

A BREAST-Q was posted to 199/248 LDMF patients in 2018, (excluding 49 patients due to death, reduced cognitive function and incorrect coding) of whom 77 patients responded (38.7%). In 188 cases (representing 208 LDMFs), surgical outcomes were assessable. Median time since LDMF surgery was 7 years (range 2-12). Rates of acute implant loss were 9/139 (6.4%), flap necrosis 7/208 (3.4%), shoulder stiffness 4/208 (1.9%), chronic pain 24/208 (11.5%) and unplanned revision surgery 13/208 (7%). Median satisfaction levels were high with 78% of patients satisfied with treatment outcomes, 65% of patients satisfied with their breasts, 71% of patients satisfied psychosocially and 75% of patients satisfied with their chest. Receipt of radiotherapy was not associated with a higher risk of flap necrosis or capsule formation.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up of a large cohort of LDMF reconstruction patients show relatively low levels of adverse events and unplanned revision surgery and high patient satisfaction, which demonstrates how temporally robust the technique is. With the rise in popularity of acellular dermal matrix reconstructions, the LDMF has relatively fallen out of favour but its potential in primary and delayed reconstruction is demonstrated.

A comparison of patient-reported outcomes between Alloderm and Dermacell in immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction: A randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Alloderm and Dermacell are the two leading human acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Despite differences in sterility, consistency, thickness and cost, there are no comparative trials to date to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) between the two products. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in patient-reported outcomes (as measured by the BREAST-Q) between patients reconstructed with Alloderm and Dermacell.

METHODS

A single center, open-label, randomized control trial of patients undergoing IBR with an implant for breast cancer or breast cancer prophylaxis was performed. Patients were randomized to either Alloderm or Dermacell. Baseline demographic data were compared, and linear mixed models were used to identify associations with BREAST-Q over time.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and October 2018, 62 patients were randomized into two groups, 31(50%) Alloderm and 31(50%) Dermacell. Of these, 23(74%) patients in the Alloderm group and 27(87%) patients of the Dermacell group filled out BREAST-Q questionnaires. Baseline BREAST-Q scores with respect to satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and physical well-being were similar between groups (p>0.05). At 3 months postoperatively, the Alloderm group had a statistically significant improvement with respect to satisfaction with breasts (67 vs 53, p = 0.03), satisfaction with overall results (85 vs 61, p = 0.003), satisfaction with the surgeon (89 vs 67, p = 0.01), and satisfaction with information provided (74 vs 59, p = 0.02). At 12 months postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences in PROM between groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

We report the first randomized controlled trial to date comparing patient-reported outcomes of the two most commonly used ADMs in IBR in Canada. Although a short-term analysis favors the use of Alloderm, there does not appear to be any difference in outcomes between the two products in the longer term.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after implant-based breast reconstruction with or without acellular dermal matrix: randomized clinical trial

Background

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant‐based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) aims to improve cosmetic outcomes. Six‐month data are presented from a randomized trial evaluating whether IBBR with ADM provides higher health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.

Methods

In this multicentre open‐label RCT, women with breast cancer planned for mastectomy with immediate IBBR in four centres in Sweden and one in the UK were allocated randomly (1 : 1) to IBBR with or without ADM. HRQoL, a secondary endpoint, was measured as patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) using three validated instruments (EORTC‐QLQC30, QLQ‐BR23, QLQ‐BRR26) at baseline and 6 months.

Results

Between 24 April 2014 and 10 May 2017, 135 women were enrolled, of whom 64 with and 65 without ADM were included in the final analysis. At 6 months after surgery, patient‐reported HRQoL, measured with generic QLQ‐C30 or breast cancer‐specific QLQ‐BR23, was similar between the groups. For patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes, two subscale items, cosmetic outcome (8·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·46 to 16·86; P = 0·041) and problems finding a well‐fitting bra (−13·21, −25·54 to −0·89; P = 0·038), yielded higher scores in favour of ADM, corresponding to a small to moderate clinical difference. None of the other 27 domains measured showed any significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

IBBR with ADM was not superior in terms of higher levels of HRQoL compared with IBBR without ADM. Although two subscale items of patient‐reported cosmetic outcomes favoured ADM, the majority of cosmetic items showed no significant difference between treatments at 6 months. Registration number: NCT02061527 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Predictors of women's sexual outcomes after implant-based breast reconstruction

Objective

Although breast reconstruction has become an important treatment modality following mastectomy, few studies assessed predictors of postoperative sexual outcomes after breast reconstruction. Therefore, we aimed to study three sexual outcomes following implant‐based breast reconstruction (IBBR), and associate multiple biopsychosocial factors with these outcomes.

Methods

Data collection was part of a multicenter prospective study on IBBR. A predictive model was tested including medical, background and psychological predictors, partner relationship factors and physical sexual function. Data collection included clinical and questionnaire data (preoperatively and 1 year following reconstruction) using the BREAST‐Q Sexual well‐being scale (BQ5), and questions regarding sexual dysfunction and sexual satisfaction questions (Female Sexual Function Index).

Results

The study sample consisted of 88 women who underwent mastectomy and IBBR. Mean postoperative BQ5 scores were lower than before surgery (M = 58 [SD = 18] vs 65 [SD = 20]; P = .01, Wilks' Lamdba = .88). Sexual dysfunctions were related strongest to orgasm inability and vaginal lubrication issues. The tested models predicted 37%‐46% of the sexual outcomes: sexual outcomes were mostly predicted by psychosocial well‐being, physical sexual function and partner support. Preoperative sexual and psychosocial well‐being were positively associated with postoperative sexual well‐being (r = 0.45 and r = 0.47).

Conclusions

Although moderately positive sexual outcomes were reported after IBBR, some women reported issues with vaginal lubrication, breast sensation and orgasm. Sexual dysfunctions were predicted by vaginal lubrication and medical treatments, while sexual well‐being and satisfaction were more predicted by psychosocial well‐being and partner support. We advocate supportive care that includes partners and psychosocial functioning to optimize sexual outcomes after IBBR.

In Vitro Characterization of a Novel Human Acellular Dermal Matrix (BellaCell HD) for Breast Reconstruction

In the past, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used in implant-based breast reconstruction. Various factors affect the clinical performance of ADMs since there is a lack of systematic characterization of ADM tissues. This study used BellaCell HD and compared it to two commercially available ADMs—AlloDerm Ready to Use (RTU) and DermACELL—under in vitro settings. Every ADM was characterized to examine compatibility through cell cytotoxicity, proliferation, and physical features like tensile strength, stiffness, and the suture tensile strength. The BellaCell HD displayed complete decellularization in comparison with the other two ADMs. Several fibroblasts grew in the BellaCell HD with no cytotoxicity. The proliferation level of fibroblasts in the BellaCell HD was higher, compared to the AlloDerm RTU and DermACELL, after 7 and 14 days. The BellaCell HD had a load value of 444.94 N, 22.44 tensile strength, and 118.41% elongation ratio, and they were higher than in the other two ADMs. There was no significant discrepancy in the findings of stiffness evaluation and suture retention strength test. The study had some limitations because there were many other more factors useful in ADM’s testing. In the study, BellaCell HD showed complete decellularization, high biocompatibility, low cytotoxicity, high tensile strength, high elongation, and high suture retention strengths. These characteristics make BellaCell HD a suitable tissue for adequate and safe use in implant-based breast reconstruction in humans.

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.

Application of Acellular Tissue Matrix for Enhancement of Weak Abdominal Wall in Animal Model

Background

Abdominal wall weakness occurs when the strength of muscle decreases due to physiological reason or iatrogenic injury. However, the treatment of this disease is complicated.

Aim

To study the therapeutic effect of acellular tissue matrix (ACTM), compared with the polypropylene mesh.

Methods

An abdominal wall weakness model was established in rabbits through motor nerves cutting. The polypropylene mesh and ACTM were implanted in the left and right abdomen sides, respectively. Mechanical testing of abdominal wall muscle and histology and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation of abdominal tissue explants were performed.

Results

In animal model establishment, the abdominal length of healthy and weakened abdominal wall was 17.0 ± 0.7 cm and 19.0 ± 1.2 cm, respectively (P=0.022), and the weak abdominal wall group showed a significant decrease of 1.116 ± 0.221 MPa in tensile stress (P=0.022), and the weak abdominal wall group showed a significant decrease of 1.116 ± 0.221 MPa in tensile stress (P=0.022), and the weak abdominal wall group showed a significant decrease of 1.116 ± 0.221 MPa in tensile stress (P=0.022), and the weak abdominal wall group showed a significant decrease of 1.116 ± 0.221 MPa in tensile stress (P=0.022), and the weak abdominal wall group showed a significant decrease of 1.116 ± 0.221 MPa in tensile stress (P=0.022), and the weak abdominal wall group showed a significant decrease of 1.116 ± 0.221 MPa in tensile stress (P=0.022), and the weak abdominal wall group showed a significant decrease of 1.116 ± 0.221 MPa in tensile stress (

Conclusion

The abdominal wall weakness model in rabbits was successfully established. ACTM is a promising biological material to be possibly further applied in clinical surgery in patients with abdominal wall weakness.

Single stage immediate breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix and implant: Defining the risks and outcomes of post-mastectomy radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to evaluate outcomes and complications in patients with single-stage ADM-implant based immediate breast reconstruction with and without radiotherapy (RT), highlighting the effects of RT on the reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study recruited 91 consecutive patients who underwent skin-sparing, nipple-sparing or wise-pattern skin reduction mastectomy with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with ADMs using sub-pectoral or pre-pectoral approach at the two breast units. Early and late complications like seroma, delayed wound healing, wound breakdown, infection, capsular contracture, implant loss and revision surgery were evaluated in the RT and non-RT groups.

RESULTS

In the total cohort of 91 patients, 29 received adjuvant RT and 62 did not need RT. In the RT group, 3-7% of them had early complications like seroma, wound infections and delayed healing. 20.7% had post-RT capsular contractures which either required revision surgery with autologous flap (6.9%) or capsulotomy with exchange of implant (6.9%). In the non-RT group, 7-9% cases had seroma & wound infections, 3.06% had delayed wound healing and 7.25% had capsular contracture. 13.04% required revision surgery due to infection, implant loss or failure to achieve expectations. The total loss of implants in the cohort was 7.14% (RT group 6.9% and non-RT group 7.25%). The need for PMRT could have been predicted pre-operatively in the RT group in 55.17% cases based on the extent of disease, multifocality, tumour grade and positive LN status on imaging.

CONCLUSION

ADM based reconstruction in patients anticipated to receive adjuvant RT is always debatable. Though there is no significant difference in the revision surgeries in our study of the 2 groups, the rate of capsular contracture as expected, was higher in the RT group. Hence, pre-operative discussion on the need for RT highlighting the risks and complications will help patients make a better-informed choice.