Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Breast Implantation
/ adverse effects
Breast Neoplasms
/ pathology
Female
Humans
Linear Models
Logistic Models
Mastectomy
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient Satisfaction
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Prospective Studies
Surgical Mesh
United Kingdom
Young Adult
Journal
BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 01 2021
08 01 2021
Historique:
received:
27
09
2020
accepted:
02
12
2020
entrez:
20
2
2021
pubmed:
21
2
2021
medline:
16
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33609398
pii: 6145787
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa063
pmc: PMC7896806
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN37664281']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025643/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Adv Nurs. 2001 Aug;35(4):477-87
pubmed: 11529946
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Apr 20;6(4):e1731
pubmed: 29876176
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Aug;120(2):373-381
pubmed: 17632337
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Aug 4;2:41
pubmed: 27965859
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Sep;43(9):1636-1646
pubmed: 28528191
Cancer. 2006 Sep 1;107(5):893-907
pubmed: 16862569
Ecancermedicalscience. 2019 May 07;13:927
pubmed: 31281424
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Aug;45(8):1357-1363
pubmed: 30827802
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jan;43(1):52-61
pubmed: 27776942
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Feb;20(2):254-266
pubmed: 30639093
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014 Oct;67(10):1333-44
pubmed: 24908545
BMJ. 2018 Jul 6;362:k2607
pubmed: 29980528
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Feb;18(2):251-258
pubmed: 28012977
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Feb;129(2):293-302
pubmed: 22286412
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Apr;18(4):e189
pubmed: 28368251
BJS Open. 2020 Feb;4(1):71-77
pubmed: 32011819
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018 Jun;52(3):130-147
pubmed: 29320921
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Jun 11;6(6):e1797
pubmed: 30276046
Br J Surg. 2015 Aug;102(9):1010-25
pubmed: 26109277
Br J Surg. 2015 Oct;102(11):1360-71
pubmed: 26179938
Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Jan;56(1):22-5
pubmed: 16374090
BMJ. 2013 Oct 15;347:f5903
pubmed: 24128977
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6):1091-1100
pubmed: 28806288
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020 Jun;44(3):735-742
pubmed: 31919627
BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 20;10(1):e035505
pubmed: 31964677
Trials. 2020 Apr 6;21(1):316
pubmed: 32252788
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan;131(1):15-23
pubmed: 23271515
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep;19(9):1205-1214
pubmed: 30104147
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Nov;140(5):869-877
pubmed: 29068918
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jan;145(1):11e-20e
pubmed: 31577663
Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Aug;69(2):134-8
pubmed: 21734545
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Aug;124(2):345-353
pubmed: 19644246
N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 9;359(15):1590-601
pubmed: 18843123