Pilot for the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR): a national opt-out clinical quality registry for breast device surgery

Comparing International Revision Incidence of Commonly Used Breast Implants

Importance

Despite the widespread use of breast implants, to date, no large-scale international studies on long-term revision incidence of different implant types have been conducted.

Objective

To determine whether international data could be combined using a harmonized dataset to increase power and investigate clinically relevant differences in complication-related revision incidence between breast implant types.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, population-based cohort study used data from the Australian Breast Device Registry and the Dutch Breast Implant Registry from 2016 to 2021. Time-to-event analysis was performed using a frailty Cox proportional hazards regression model with pooled data. The study included all permanent breast implants that were inserted for primary postmastectomy or benign breast reconstruction or cosmetic augmentation. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2021.

Exposure

Permanent breast implants grouped based on implant shape, shell, and fill.

Main outcomes and measures

Complication-related revision incidence between breast implant types.

Results

Data exchange between registries was successful. In total, 21 115 reconstructive and 129 854 cosmetic breast implants inserted in patients with a median (IQR) age of 47 (38-55) years and 31 (25-38) years, respectively, were included. Overall complication-related revision was 6.3% for reconstructive and 1.2% for cosmetic implants. For reconstructive implants, hazard ratios (HRs) for implant types showed no significant differences compared with anatomical textured-silicone implants. For cosmetic implants, anatomical polyurethane-silicone implants showed a lower risk of revision (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.64) compared with anatomical-textured-silicone implants. At 5 years, no significant differences in cumulative revision incidence were observed between implant types for either reconstructive or cosmetic implants.

Conclusions and relevance

This study showed that international datasets can be pooled to assess real-world incidence of breast implant revision, which is anticipated to generate a foundation on which future breast implant studies can be based.

Contemporary Trends in Antiseptic Pocket Rinse in Primary Breast Implant Surgery

BACKGROUND

Broad evidence supports the use of antiseptic pocket rinse in breast implant surgery to minimize the risk of capsular contracture or other complications. However, there is limited consensus or standardization of antiseptic rinse in practice.

OBJECTIVES

In this preliminary study, we sought to determine contemporary trends in antiseptic rinse use in primary breast implant surgery based on Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) data, and whether these trends align with the suggestions of the 14-point plan. This further served as a feasibility study for subsequent comparison of antiseptic rinse effects on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Institutional ethics approval was obtained and national ABDR data for primary breast implant surgery from 2015 to 2020 were analyzed for the use and type of antiseptic rinse. The surgeon-reported data were homogenized with regard to terminology and categorized by major trends, and the literature was reviewed.

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 37,143 patients, totaling 73,935 primary implants. Antiseptic rinse included povidone-iodine (PVP-I) in 35,859 (48.5%), no antiseptic use in 24,216 (32.8%), other concentrations of PVP-I in 4200 (5.7%), and Betadine triple antibiotic in 1831 implants (2.5%). Multiple other antiseptic permutations were noted in 7004 implants (9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority (56.7%) of Australian practitioners utilize previously described antiseptic pocket irrigation solutions that align with the 14-point plan. A third (32.8%), however, do not record any antiseptic pocket irrigation. These findings will permit a subsequent (ongoing) study of outcomes comparing PVP-I pocket rinse to no antiseptic pocket rinse, which will likely constitute the largest study of its kind.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in High-Risk Medical Device Registries: A Scoping Review

Little is known about the methods and outcomes of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) use among high-risk medical device registries. The objective of this scoping review was to assess the utility and predictive ability of PROMs in high-risk medical device registries. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, APA PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for published literature. After searching, 4323 titles and abstracts were screened, and 262 full texts were assessed for their eligibility. Seventy-six papers from across orthopedic (n = 64), cardiac (n = 10), penile (n = 1), and hernia mesh (n = 1) device registries were identified. Studies predominantly used PROMs as an outcome measure when comparing cohorts or surgical approaches (n = 45) or to compare time points (n = 13) including pre- and postintervention. Fifteen papers considered the predictive ability of PROMs. Of these, 8 treated PROMs as an outcome, 5 treated PROMs as a risk factor through regression analysis, and 2 papers treated PROMs as both a risk factor and as an outcome. One paper described PROMs to study implant survival. To advance methods of PROM integration into clinical decision-making for medical devices, an understanding of their use in high-risk device registries is needed. This scoping review found that there is a paucity of studies using PROMs to predict long-term patient and clinical outcomes in high-risk medical device registries. Determination as to why PROMs are rarely used for predictive purposes in long-term data collection is needed if PROM data are to be considered suitable as real-world evidence for high-risk device regulatory purposes, as well as to support clinical decision-making.

Level of Evidence 4

The Mandatory German Breast Implant Registry Law: A Model for Sustainable Implant Registries

BACKGROUND

Recurrent scandals involving breast implants have revealed that scientific evidence on the performance of these devices is lacking, and passive monitoring systems are not capable of detecting problems at an early stage. The German health authorities therefore decided to implement a prospective, mandatory registry.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article was to provide information about the advantages of implementing a mandatory registry, the potential hurdles involved, and to establish structural requirements that future registries can use.

METHODS

Since 2018, the authors have assisted the German Ministry of Health in refining the Implant Law and its implementation. They adapted an internationally consented dataset, promoted international data amplification and conducted monthly trial inputs for over 2 years. By identifying several key issues they were able to assist in developing solutions.

RESULTS

The cooperation with the authorities was characterized by appreciation of the authors' expertise and previous international work. Challenges included data privacy issues, federal competence, longitudinal follow-up, and contact data; as well as associated costs and technical solutions for data inclusion and the use of information technology to communicate with stakeholders. Addressing these challenges required considerable interference with personal rights and complementary measures for all stakeholders. Extensive structural precautions were taken to safeguard personal data privacy as far as possible.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' experience and lessons learned can guide registries seeking to engage in high levels of evidence data. The authors describe their approach, the obstacles they encountered, and the strategies employed to overcome the setbacks of other registries.

BIA-ALCL Epidemiological Findings From a Retrospective Study of 248 Cases Extracted From Relevant Case Reports and Series: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The epidemiologic picture of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is unclear, with no high-level evidence, because only case reports and series are available.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to update knowledge on BIA-ALCL epidemiology by utilizing all available data through a systematic review of scientific literature.

METHODS

A search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted between October 2021 and April 2022. Out of the 2799 available records, 114 pertinent articles were selected, featuring 248 BIA-ALCL cases which were retrospectively analyzed by means of descriptive statistics, incidence rate (IR), Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and Pearson correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

The United States, the Netherlands, Italy, and Australia were the countries reporting the most cases. The mean age at first implantation was 42 years, and the mean age at diagnosis was 53 years. Aesthetic indications were the reason for 52% of cases, and reconstruction for 48%; macrotextured surface was linked to 73.8% of cases, and seroma to 83%. Total follow-up was 492 months, and mean event-free time (EFT) to BIA-ALCL development was 129 months. The IR was 96 new cases/1,000 women per year after first implantation, and was directly correlated to the number of replacements. EFT was directly correlated to the number of replacements, implant rupture, and capsule contracture, and was inversely associated with patients' age at first implantation and to BRACA1/2 and TP53 mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Macrotextured implant use in older patients and in patients with BRCA1/2 and TP53 mutations should be reconsidered, because this is associated with earlier disease onset. Implant replacement of asymptomatic, risk-stratified patients can be indicated due to its protective role against BIA-ALCL, reducing IR and risk, while increasing the EFT.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures After Breast Augmentation - Using the BREAST-Q IS

PURPOSE

Cosmetic breast augmentation procedures are commonly performed breast device surgeries. The Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) administers a five-question patient reported outcome measure (PROM), the BREAST-Q Implant Surveillance module (BREAST-Q IS), to patients 1, 2 and 5 years after breast device surgery. The measure includes an open-ended question to add any comments. This study aimed to use the responses to this open-ended question to assess participants' experiences of breast devices 1 and 2 years after breast augmentation. The secondary objective was to identify emerging and important issues relating to breast augmentation and devices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This qualitative descriptive study was conducted using a randomly selected sample of 268 responses to the open-ended question in the BREAST-Q IS, from the ABDR database. These responses were from patients who underwent breast augmentation between 2015 and 2018. Comments were analyzed using conventional content analysis in NVivo 12.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified: satisfaction following breast augmentation, dissatisfaction following breast augmentation, complications and breast symptoms following breast augmentation and other comments. Two dominant themes were regarding satisfaction (n = 112) with overall surgical outcome, medical team, and post-operative appearance and complications and breast symptoms (n = 177) following breast augmentation. Emerging issues identified were rippling of breast implants and breast implant illness (BII).

CONCLUSION

PROMs can be used to understand patients' perspectives on various aspects of their own surgical experiences. Participants provided responses regarding complications and breast symptoms experienced, and rippling of the breast implants and BII are emerging issues after breast augmentation.

Breast Device Surgery in Australia: Early Results from the Australian Breast Device Registry

BACKGROUND

The Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) is a clinical quality registry designed to monitor the performance of breast devices; and the quality and safety of breast device surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To report on breast device surgery characteristics across Australia.

METHODS

Participants were registered patients in the ABDR from 2012 to 2018. Results are described using percentages, mean and median. Revision rates were calculated using survival analysis methods.

RESULTS

A total of 37,603 patients were registered and had undergone reconstruction (post-cancer 15.1%, risk-reducing mastectomy 3.4% and developmental deformity 2.4%) or cosmetic augmentation (74.7%) procedures. The majority of breast implant devices were silicone filled with textured surface (reconstruction 74.0% and augmentation 64.0%). Sub-pectoral plane was the most common for both reconstruction (60.1%) and augmentation (76.6%) procedures. For reconstruction surgery, the most common surgical incision was previous mastectomy scar (44.0%) and inframammary (31.8%), and for augmentation, it was inframammary (83.4%). Intraoperative/postoperative antibiotic usage for reconstruction was 85.8% and augmentation was 89.4%. Revision incidence due to complication at 12 months post-cancer reconstruction was 5.1%, risk-reducing reconstruction 5.7% and developmental deformity implants 4.5%. Revision incidence due to complication at 12 months after augmentation procedure was 1.1%. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) indicate high levels of satisfaction at 1 year for augmentation and reconstruction procedures.

CONCLUSION

We report on early data from the ABDR and reflect on the uptake of the registry by surgeons and patients. The registry also benefits from international collaborative approaches to addressing challenges and is committed to facilitate international post-market surveillance.

A Systematic Review of the National Breast Implant Registry for Application in Korea: Can We Predict "Unpredictable" Complications?

Background and Objectives: Since silicone breast implants were introduced to the market several decades ago, the safety of breast implants has remained controversial. Recently, several studies have explored breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and breast implant illness (BII). Several countries have developed national breast implant registries to improve the safety and quality of breast implant surgery. We performed a systematic review of the current status of national breast implant registries and propose a pilot form of an appropriate breast implant registry model for Korea. Materials and Methods: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) pro forma”. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify all articles containing information on national breast implant registries. We limited the search to articles written in the English language from 2010 to 2020. Articles were reviewed by two independent authors. Results: A total of 63 articles related to national breast implant registries, registry principles and national breast implant registry annual reports were identified. After reviewing the literature, 25 national breast implant registry-related articles were included in the full-text synthesis. Currently, four countries, The Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, and the UK, have breast implant registries with well-formed sources for big data. Overall, similarities in data points were detected for three categories: implant-related complications, operation details, and device information. However, there were differences for each registry in terms of governance, funding, and capture rate. Conclusion: After reviewing other countries’ experiences, tentative datasets for the Korean Breast Implant Registry (K-BIR) were developed. The K-BIR can improve the quality of breast implant surgery in Korea by providing datasets on overall processes and outcome measures with quality indicators and risk adjustment factors. This approach will register characteristics of patients and monitor breast implants, complications, and surgical procedures to improve the outcomes of breast implant surgery in Korea. In addition, it can be used as a track-and-trace system with automated notifications to patients in the event of a product recall or other safety concerns related to a specific type of implant.

Background and Objectives: Since silicone breast implants were introduced to the market several decades ago, the safety of breast implants has remained controversial. Recently, several studies have explored breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and breast implant illness (BII). Several countries have developed national breast implant registries to improve the safety and quality of breast implant surgery. We performed a systematic review of the current status of national breast implant registries and propose a pilot form of an appropriate breast implant registry model for Korea. Materials and Methods: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) pro forma”. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify all articles containing information on national breast implant registries. We limited the search to articles written in the English language from 2010 to 2020. Articles were reviewed by two independent authors. Results: A total of 63 articles related to national breast implant registries, registry principles and national breast implant registry annual reports were identified. After reviewing the literature, 25 national breast implant registry-related articles were included in the full-text synthesis. Currently, four countries, The Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, and the UK, have breast implant registries with well-formed sources for big data. Overall, similarities in data points were detected for three categories: implant-related complications, operation details, and device information. However, there were differences for each registry in terms of governance, funding, and capture rate. Conclusion: After reviewing other countries’ experiences, tentative datasets for the Korean Breast Implant Registry (K-BIR) were developed. The K-BIR can improve the quality of breast implant surgery in Korea by providing datasets on overall processes and outcome measures with quality indicators and risk adjustment factors. This approach will register characteristics of patients and monitor breast implants, complications, and surgical procedures to improve the outcomes of breast implant surgery in Korea. In addition, it can be used as a track-and-trace system with automated notifications to patients in the event of a product recall or other safety concerns related to a specific type of implant.

Lessons Learned From Breast Implant Registries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Over several decades, numerous national and international registries on breast implants went online, aiming to collect prospective data to provide increased safety for patients and surgeons. We performed a review of all published data on breast implant registries to assess availability and quality of data and determine its usefulness and impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Ovid, and Web of Science were searched to identify all articles containing breast implant registries in English language. The review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42016041255) and performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. There was no limitation by publication date.

RESULTS

Eight hundred ninety-five articles were identified; after removal of duplicates, 536 abstracts were screened on breast implant registries in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Unrelated articles, non-English articles, and not breast implant-related studies were excluded. Twenty breast implant registry-related articles met the inclusion criteria; 7 articles contained actual data on breast implants. Compared with international trends, only a minimal percentage of performed surgical breast augmentations is documented in registries, and the overall data quality and availability were low.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a fraction of performed breast augmentations is documented properly in a registry. Currently, there are no published data based on a clinical quality registry. Sustained funding and reliable administrative governmental structures remain crucial to establish an adequate clinical quality registry for breast implants as currently launched in Australia to analyze outcomes and risk factors for an increased patient safety.

The "Game of Implants": A Perspective on the Crisis-Prone History of Breast Implants

Since their introduction into the market, breast implants have been the subject of many controversies. It is timely to examine the forces that have shaped the breast implant industry to make it what it is today. This review will concentrate more on the use of implants in aesthetic surgery rather than their use in breast reconstruction, but some of the factors have relevance to both indications.