The Relationship between Animation Deformity and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Application of the BREAST-Q to a Quantitative Stratification of Animation Severity

Three and twelve-month analysis of the PROM-Q study: comparison of patient-reported outcome measures using the BREAST-Q questionnaire in pre- vs. sub-pectoral implant-based immediate breast reconstruction

PURPOSE

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is being increasingly performed with implant placed above the pectoral muscle (pre-pectoral), instead of below the pectoral muscle (sub-pectoral). Currently, there is a lack of comparative data on clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- vs. sub-pectoral IBR. We investigated whether this difference in surgical approach influenced clinical or patient-perceived outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective non-randomised longitudinal cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04842240) recruited patients undergoing immediate IBR at the Leeds Breast Unit (Sep 2019-Sep 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics and post-operative complications. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were collected using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at baseline, 2 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients underwent IBR (46 patients pre-pectoral; 59% vs. 32 patients sub-pectoral; 41%). Similar complication rates were observed (15.2% pre-pectoral vs. 9.4% sub-pectoral; p = 0.44). Overall implant loss rate was 3.8% (6.5% pre-pectoral vs. 0% sub-pectoral; p = 0.13). Respective median Breast-Q scores for pre- and sub-pectoral IBR at 3 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 48; p = 0.01), psychosocial well-being (60 vs. 57; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 76; p = 0.53), and Animation Q scores (73 vs. 76; p = 0.45). Respective Breast-Q scores at 12 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 53; p = 0.3), psychosocial well-being (59 vs. 60; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 78; p = 0.18), and Animation Q scores (69 vs. 73; p = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates equivalent clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- and sub-pectoral IBR. The study findings can be utilised to aid informed decision making regarding either surgical option.

Quantifying the Impact of Prepectoral Implant Conversion on Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Conversion of subpectoral reconstruction to the prepectoral plane has been increasing in popularity. However, there is a paucity of research assessing patient-reported outcomes after this operation. The primary aim of this study was to examine patient-reported outcomes after conversion of implants from the subpectoral to prepectoral plane using the BREAST-Q.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively examined patients who underwent subpectoral-to-prepectoral implant conversion by three surgeons at two separate centers from 2017 through 2021. Patient demographics, primary indication for the conversion, surgical characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and BREAST-Q scores were obtained.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight breasts in 39 patients underwent implant conversion. The most common primary indications for implant conversion were chronic pain (41%), animation deformity (31%), and cosmetic concerns (28%). Average BREAST-Q scores improved significantly preoperatively to postoperatively in all the domains measured (satisfaction with breasts, satisfaction with implants, physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being) ( P < 0.01). When examined by primary indication, all cohorts had significant preoperative to postoperative score improvement in satisfaction with breasts ( P < 0.001) and physical well-being ( P < 0.01) domains. Fifteen breasts (22%) developed postoperative complications, with implant loss in 9% of breasts.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of subpectoral implants to the prepectoral plane significantly improves BREAST-Q outcomes in all aspects, including patient satisfaction with breasts and implants, as well as psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being. Implant conversion to the prepectoral plane is becoming the authors' primary solution for most patients with chronic pain, animation deformity, or cosmetic concerns after subpectoral reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

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.

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.

Evaluation of Breast Animation Deformity following Pre- and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background  The incidence of breast animation deformity (BAD) is reported to be substantial after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement. It has, however, never been examined if BAD can occur following prepectoral implant placement. Our primary aim was to compare the incidence and degree of BAD after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement. Secondary aim of this study was to assess and compare the level of pain between sub- and prepectoral reconstructed women. Methods  In this randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to reconstruction by either subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines. The degree of BAD was assessed by the "Nipple, Surrounding skin, Entire breast (NSE)" grading scale 12 months after surgery. The level of postoperative pain was assessed on a numerical pain rating scale. Results  We found a significant difference in the degree of BAD favoring patients in the prepectoral group (23.8 vs. 100%, p  < 0.0001; mean NSE grading scale score: 0.4 vs. 3.6, p  < 0.0001). The subpectoral reconstructed group reported higher levels of pain on the three subsequent days after surgery. No significant difference in pain levels could be found at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion  The incidence and degree of BAD was significantly lower in women reconstructed by prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Unexpectedly, we found mild degrees of BAD in the prepectoral group. When assessing BAD, distortion can be challenging to discern from rippling.

Pectoral Muscle Re-Attachment with Breast Implant Removal

Breast implant removal is an increasingly requested procedure. An uncommon but important reason for this is breast animation deformity (BAD). Although methods such as the split muscle have been used for prevention and correction of animation deformity successfully for many years, [1, 2] we occasionally see patients who have undergone explantation and present with unresolved animation. These patients have had prior unsuccessful attempts at correction by further muscle release, and explantation was done as a final attempt at resolution. We regard muscle re-attachment as key to correction of animation. Herein we present illustrative cases and discuss technical points.

Articulating the "So, What?" in Clinical Research: Insight from the M-CHOIR Group

With the academic culture of "publish or perish," authors must ensure that they are delivering high-quality data with a meaningful impact on clinical practice. Even for physician-scientists at the top of their fields, establishing the relevance of a study to clinical practice is a challenge. Thus, it is essential that research proposals ask questions that are clinically important, use appropriate methodologies, and examine outcomes that are relevant to both the physicians and the patients. The question of "so, what?" or in other words, "who cares?" is one that can make or break a study's impact on clinical practice. Researchers should use models such as PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design) and FINER (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant) and ask why readers will care about their study's findings before the study is conducted. By doing so, researchers can ensure the successful execution of their study and a meaningful impact of their findings, in both academia and clinical practice. This Special Topic article aims to guide researchers in producing relevant, impactful conclusions of their studies by providing input and resources from the Michigan Center for Hand Outcomes and Innovation (M-CHOIR) group.

Prospective Study of Saline versus Silicone Gel Implants for Subpectoral Breast Augmentation

Background

Silicone gel implants are regarded as esthetically superior to saline implants, offering a more natural consistency. They are also considered less susceptible to rippling. However, objective measurements and patient-reported outcome studies are lacking. Similarly, minimal data are available quantitating animation deformity.

Methods

A 3-year prospective study was undertaken among 223 women undergoing primary subpectoral breast augmentation using either saline (n = 145) or silicone gel (n = 78) implants. Photographs obtained included frontal views with the patient flexing the pectoral muscles. Images were matched, and vertical differences in nipple position were measured. Breast implants were evaluated using high-resolution ultrasound to detect any ripples or folds at least 3 months after surgery. Outcome surveys were administered. Statistical analysis included the χ² test, point-biserial correlations, and a power analysis.

Results

Respondents reported visible rippling in 18% of women and palpable rippling in 32% of patients, with no significant difference between women treated with saline and silicone gel implants. Ripples were detected on ultrasound scans in 24% of women with saline implants and in 27% of women with silicone gel implants (difference not significant). Ripples were more common in women with lower body mass indices. Fifty percent of patients demonstrated nipple displacement <1 cm on animation. Nipple displacement occurred either up or down with equal frequency and a mean overall nipple displacement of zero.

Conclusions

Saline and silicone breast implants produce similar degrees of rippling, as determined on outcome surveys and ultrasound examination. Animation deformities tend to be minor and well-tolerated.