Search

Summary Background Silicone gel implants are used worldwide for breast augmentation and breast reconstruction. Textured silicone implants are the most commonly placed implant, but polyurethane-coated implants are increasingly being used in an attempt to ameliorate the long-term complications associated with implant insertion. Methods This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and www.ClinicalTrials.gov were undertaken in March 2014 using keywords. Results Following data extraction, 18 studies were included in the review, including four core studies of textured silicone implants and five studies reporting outcomes for polyurethane-coated silicone implants. There are no clear data reporting revision rates in patients treated with polyurethane implants. In the primary reconstructive setting, capsular contracture rates with silicone implants are 10–15% at 6 years, whilst studies of polyurethane implants report rates of 1.8–3.4%. In the primary augmentation setting, core studies show a capsular contracture rate of 2–15% at 6 years compared with 0.4–1% in polyurethane-coated implants; however, the polyurethane studies are limited by their design and poor follow-up. Conclusions The use of polyurethane implants should be considered a safe alternative to textured silicone implants. It is likely that an implant surface does influence short- and long-term outcomes; however, the extent of any benefit cannot be determined from the available evidence base. Future implant studies should target the short- and long-term benefits of implant surfacing by procedure with defined outcome measures; a head-to-head comparison would help clarify outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decision-making for women requiring reconstruction and post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) includes oncological safety, cosmesis, patient choice, potential delay/interference with adjuvant treatment and surgeon/oncologist preference. This study aimed to quantitatively assess surgeons' attitudes and perceptions about reconstructive options in this setting, and to ascertain if surgical volume influenced advice given. A questionnaire was sent to surgical members of the UK Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) in March–June 2014. The questionnaire elicited information on surgeon volume, reconstructive practice and drivers influencing decision-making. Response rate was 42% (148/355), representing 71% of UK breast units. Delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) was offered more commonly than immediate implant, delayed-immediate or immediate autologous reconstruction ( p < 0.05). Cosmesis was thought to be equivalent between IBR and DBR by 15% of surgeons, and 26% believe IBR and DBR offer similar Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL). Surgeon volume had no effect on reconstruction choice. Common decision-making drivers included negative effects of radiotherapy upon reconstructive and cosmetic outcome. The majority of surgeons (77%) believe the current evidence base is insufficient to guide decision-making. Despite surgeons believing that cosmesis and quality of life are not equivalent between IBR and DBR, DBR remains the commonest approach to this difficult clinical scenario. Surgeons perceive they are using a variety of newer techniques such as Delayed-Immediate Reconstruction and Acellular Dermal Matrices to try to ameliorate the effects of PMRT. This survey demonstrates that there is wide variation in reported surgical practice in this difficult setting. There is widespread acknowledgement of the lack of evidence to guide decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prioritising breast cancer research gaps: The views of patients, members of the public, research scientists and clinicians. P146. [Extracted from the article]

B Results: b To date 41 participants have completed the prioritisation exercise, two patients, 14 public, four scientists and 20 clinicians. This will allow a comparison between the priorities of patients, public, clinicians and scientists, to better identify the key research priorities where funding should be focused. [Extracted from the article]