Cargando…
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 syn...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7896806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33609398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa063 |
_version_ | 1783653615711289344 |
---|---|
author | Sewart, E Turner, N L Conroy, E J Cutress, R I Skillman, J Whisker, L Thrush, S Barnes, N Holcombe, C Potter, S |
author_facet | Sewart, E Turner, N L Conroy, E J Cutress, R I Skillman, J Whisker, L Thrush, S Barnes, N Holcombe, C Potter, S |
author_sort | Sewart, E |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7896806 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78968062021-02-24 Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh Sewart, E Turner, N L Conroy, E J Cutress, R I Skillman, J Whisker, L Thrush, S Barnes, N Holcombe, C Potter, S BJS Open Original Article 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. Oxford University Press 2021-02-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7896806/ /pubmed/33609398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa063 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Original Article Sewart, E Turner, N L Conroy, E J Cutress, R I Skillman, J Whisker, L Thrush, S Barnes, N Holcombe, C Potter, S Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh |
title | Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh |
title_full | Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh |
title_fullStr | Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh |
title_short | Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh |
title_sort | patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7896806/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33609398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa063 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sewarte patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT turnernl patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT conroyej patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT cutressri patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT skillmanj patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT whiskerl patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT thrushs patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT barnesn patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT holcombec patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT potters patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh AT patientreportedoutcomesofimmediateimplantbasedbreastreconstructionwithandwithoutbiologicalorsyntheticmesh |