The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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

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

2474-9842
Sewart, E
de95e922-43e6-4d8e-af7f-4291b301235b
Turner, N L
354da011-c0f2-46b7-b8aa-126c986e6110
Conroy, E J
d050f25a-4835-4a7b-a7a9-1c3a01abe2a7
Cutress, R I
68ae4f86-e8cf-411f-a335-cdba51797406
Skillman, J
c256c949-2985-4228-adf3-3a49e6b5f89f
Whisker, L
027116b4-974a-45fa-bd29-5e92e610e155
Thrush, S
50e7242b-54bd-4f0d-9dc1-367f7c05020c
Barnes, N
4ec5f15a-362a-459c-8b50-f6b15aa94081
Holcombe, C
f9196a8b-3f04-49cf-aa7b-e0a3e02caa57
Potter, S
bfe8461d-7483-4151-820e-47dbba3e90a4
implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) Steering Group and the Breast Reconstruction Research Collaborative
Sewart, E
de95e922-43e6-4d8e-af7f-4291b301235b
Turner, N L
354da011-c0f2-46b7-b8aa-126c986e6110
Conroy, E J
d050f25a-4835-4a7b-a7a9-1c3a01abe2a7
Cutress, R I
68ae4f86-e8cf-411f-a335-cdba51797406
Skillman, J
c256c949-2985-4228-adf3-3a49e6b5f89f
Whisker, L
027116b4-974a-45fa-bd29-5e92e610e155
Thrush, S
50e7242b-54bd-4f0d-9dc1-367f7c05020c
Barnes, N
4ec5f15a-362a-459c-8b50-f6b15aa94081
Holcombe, C
f9196a8b-3f04-49cf-aa7b-e0a3e02caa57
Potter, S
bfe8461d-7483-4151-820e-47dbba3e90a4

implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) Steering Group and the Breast Reconstruction Research Collaborative (2021) Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh. BJS Open, 5 (1), [zraa063]. (doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zraa063).

Record type: Article

Abstract

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.

Text
zraa063 - Version of Record
Download (259kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 2 December 2020
Published date: 20 February 2021
Additional Information: Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 447249
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/447249
ISSN: 2474-9842
PURE UUID: d896a2f0-d559-4db3-b692-12d1beeb1022

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Mar 2021 17:32
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 11:11

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: E Sewart
Author: N L Turner
Author: E J Conroy
Author: R I Cutress
Author: J Skillman
Author: L Whisker
Author: S Thrush
Author: N Barnes
Author: C Holcombe
Author: S Potter
Corporate Author: implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) Steering Group and the Breast Reconstruction Research Collaborative

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×