Search

Although it is intuitive that nipple-sparing mastectomy in selected patients would result in excellent cosmetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction, studies of clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life are limited and show mixed results. This study aimed to use a propensity score-matching analysis to compare satisfaction and health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction following bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy.A propensity score-matching analysis (1:1 matching, no replacement) was performed comparing patients undergoing nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction. Patients with a history of any radiation therapy were excluded. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race, smoking history, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bra size, and history of psychiatric diagnosis. Outcomes of interest included BREAST-Q scores and complications.The authors examined 1371 patients for matching and included 460 patients (nipple-sparing mastectomy, n = 230; skin-sparing mastectomy, n = 230) in the final analyses. The authors found no significant differences in baseline, cancer, and surgical characteristics between matched nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy patients, who also had similar profiles for surgical complications. Interestingly, the authors found that postoperative Satisfaction with Breasts scores and all other health-related quality-of-life domains were stable over a 3-year period and did not differ significantly between the two groups.Compared with skin-sparing mastectomy, bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy did not improve patient-reported or clinical outcomes when combined with immediate implant-based reconstruction. The impact that nipple-sparing mastectomy may have on breast aesthetics and the ability of the BREAST-Q to gauge an aesthetic result following nipple-sparing mastectomy warrant further investigation.Therapeutic, III.

Although guidelines have been published on treatment of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), there has been no comprehensive analysis of BIA-ALCL treatment variation based on the available literature. The authors sought to assess current treatment strategies of BIA-ALCL relative to current guidelines.Database searches were conducted in June of 2020. Included articles were case reports and case series with patient-level data. Collected variables included clinicopathologic features, implant characteristics, diagnostic tests, ALCL characteristics, treatment, and details of follow-up and outcome. Treatment data from before and after 2017 were compared with National Cancer Center Network guidelines.A total of 89 publications were included and 178 cases of BIA-ALCL were identified. Most patients presented with seroma ( n = 114, 70.4 percent), followed by a mass ( n = 14, 8.6 percent), or both ( n = 23, 14.2 percent). Treatment included en bloc capsulectomy of the affected implant in 122 out of 126 cases with treatment details provided (96.8 percent). Radiation therapy was given in 38 cases (30.2 percent) and chemotherapy was given in 71 cases (56.3 percent). Practitioners used less chemotherapy for local disease after treatment guideline publication in 2017 ( p0.001), whereas treatment for advanced disease remained unchanged ( p = 0.3). There were 10 recurrences and eight fatalities attributable to BIA-ALCL, which were associated with advanced presentation (29 versus 2.1 percent; OR, 19.4; 95 percent CI, 3.9 to 96.3; p0.001).BIA-ALCL remains a morbid but treatable condition. Current guidelines focus treatment for local disease and reduce nonsurgical interventions with radiation or chemotherapy. Patients presenting with advanced BIA-ALCL experience higher rates of recurrence and mortality.

Data heterogeneity and methodologic errors hinder the ability to draw clinically meaningful conclusions from studies using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module patient-reported outcome measure. In this systematic review, the authors evaluate the quality of BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module administration in relation to the BREAST-Q version 2.0 user's guide and the reporting of key methodology characteristics. The authors also describe a framework for improving the quality of BREAST-Q data analysis and reporting.The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid HAPI databases to identify articles on the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module to assess postmastectomy breast reconstruction outcomes. The authors registered the protocol before study implementation on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/c5236 ) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data on mode of BREAST-Q administration, time horizon justification, and sample size calculation were collected.The authors included 185 studies in the analysis. Errors in BREAST-Q administration were identified in 36 studies (19.5 percent). Appropriate administration of the BREAST-Q could not be determined in 63 studies (34.1 percent) because of insufficient reporting. Time horizon for the primary outcome was reported in 71 studies (38.4 percent), with only 17 (9.2 percent) reporting a sample size calculation.The authors identified important yet actionable shortcomings in the BREAST-Q literature. Researchers are encouraged to review the BREAST-Q user's guide in the study design phase to mitigate errors in patient-reported outcome measure administration and reporting for future trials using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. Adhering to these guidelines will allow for greater clinical utility and generalizability of BREAST-Q research.

Radiation therapy is increasingly used after breast cancer surgery, which may impact patients' postoperative quality of life. This study assessed differences in long-term patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after radiation therapy administered at different stages of implant-based breast reconstruction or with no radiation after surgery.In this observational study, long-term outcomes were evaluated for four cohorts of women who completed breast reconstruction and received (1) no radiation, (2) radiation before tissue expander placement, (3) radiation after tissue expander placement, or (4) radiation after permanent implant between 2010 and 2017 at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Satisfaction and health-related quality of life were assessed using the prospectively collected Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest BREAST-Q subscales. Score distributions were examined by radiation exposure status for 3 years after surgery using nonparametric analyses and regression models.Of 2932 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 25.8 percent received radiation during breast cancer treatment, including before tissue expander placement ( n = 239; 8.2 percent), after tissue expander placement ( n = 290; 9.9 percent), and after implant placement ( n = 228; 7.8 percent). Radiotherapy patients had average scores 7 to 9 points lower at all postoperative time points for Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest subscales ( p0.001). Although patient-reported outcomes did not differ by radiation timing, there were higher rates of severe capsular contracture with postimplant radiotherapy ( p0.001).Radiation therapy significantly affected patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following implant breast reconstruction through 3 years postoperatively. Patient perception of outcome was unaffected by radiotherapy timing; however, capsular contracture was higher after postimplant radiotherapy, suggesting there may be an advantage to performing radiotherapy before placement of the final reconstruction.Therapeutic, III.

Prepectoral placement of tissue expanders for two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction potentially minimizes chest wall morbidity and postoperative pain. The authors explored 90-day clinical and health-related quality-of-life outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction.The authors conducted a propensity score-matching analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching without replacement) of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral or subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction between December of 2017 and January of 2019. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, smoking status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were perioperative analgesia use, 90-day postoperative patient-reported pain, complication rates, and BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores.Of the initial cohort of 921 patients, 238 were propensity-matched and included in the final analysis. The matched cohort had no differences in baseline characteristics. Postoperative ketorolac (p = 0.048) use was higher in the subpectoral group; there were no other significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative analgesia use. Prepectoral patients had lower pain on postoperative days 1 to 2 but no differences on days 3 to 10. BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores did not differ. Prepectoral patients had higher rates of seroma than subpectoral patients (p0.001). Rates of tissue expander loss did not differ.This matched analysis of 90-day complications found lower early postoperative pain in prepectoral tissue expander patients but no longer-term patient-reported differences. Although prepectoral reconstruction patients experienced a higher rate of seroma, this did not translate to a difference in tissue expander loss. Long-term analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes is needed to understand the full profile of the prepectoral technique.Therapeutic, III.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities are evident in multiple aspects of the perioperative care of breast cancer patients, but data examining if such differences translate to clinical and patient-reported outcomes are limited. This study examined the impact of race on perioperative outcomes in autologous breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study including all breast cancer patients who underwent immediate autologous breast reconstruction at a single institution from 2010 to 2017 was conducted. Self-reported race was used to classify patients into 3 groups: white, African American, and other. The primary and secondary endpoints were occurrence of any major complications within 30 days of surgery and patient-reported outcomes (measured with the BREAST-Q), respectively. Regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with the outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 404 patients, including 259(64%) white, 63(16%) African American, and 82(20%) patients from other minority groups, were included. African American patients had a significantly higher proportion of preoperative comorbidities. Postoperatively, African American patients had a higher incidence of 30-day major complications (p = 0.004) and were more likely to return to the operating room (p = 0.006). Univariable analyses examining complications demonstrated that race was the only factor associated with 30-day major complications (p = 0.001). Patient-reported outcomes were not statistically different at each time point through 3 years postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: African American patients continue to present with increased comorbidities and may be more likely to experience major complications following immediate autologous breast reconstruction. However, patient-reported satisfaction or physical wellbeing outcomes may not differ between groups.

Background The association between textured surface breast implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has led to an increase in surgical procedures to exchange textured devices to smooth surface implants. Because patient satisfaction is an integral part of breast reconstruction, the purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes between smooth and textured implant recipients. Methods Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either smooth or textured devices from 2009 to 2017 and completed the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure following reconstruction were included in this analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were mean and median BREAST-Q scores and postoperative complications. Results Overall, 1077 patients were included-785 who underwent breast reconstruction with smooth implants and 292 who underwent breast reconstruction with textured implants. No statistical differences were observed between the textured and smooth implant groups for any of the BREAST-Q domain scores at any of the early (3-month) to late (2-year) postoperative time points. Smooth implant recipients reported significantly more rippling (p = 0.003) than textured implant recipients. In contrast, textured implant recipients had a higher rate of cellulitis than smooth implant recipients (p = 0.016). Conclusions These data suggest that postoperative satisfaction with breasts or health-related quality of life following immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction is likely independent of implant surface type. However, smooth breast implants may result in more rippling. The authors' findings represent an important aid in counseling patients who have questions about the risks and benefits of replacing their textured implants with smooth surface devices. Clinical question/level of evidence Therapeutic, III.

Background Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a significant public health concern for women with breast implants. The increase in incidence rates underscores the need for improved methods for risk reduction and risk management. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to assess surgical risk reduction techniques and analyze communication/informed consent practices in patients with textured implants. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed (legacy), Embase (Embase.com), and Scopus with four search strategies including key terms centered around breast reconstruction and BIA-ALCL. Results A total of 571 articles were identified, of which 276 were included in the final review after duplicates were removed. After review, no articles were determined to fit the inclusion criteria of demonstrating data-driven evidence of BIA-ALCL risk reduction through surgical measures, demonstrating a significant lack of data on risk reduction for BIA-ALCL. Conclusions Risk management for BIA-ALCL is an evolving area requiring additional investigation. Although removal of textured devices in asymptomatic patients is not currently recommended by the Food and Drug Administration, variability in estimates of risk has led many patients to electively replace these implants in an effort to decrease their risk of developing BIA-ALCL. To date, however, there is no evidence supporting the concept that replacing textured implants with smooth implants reduces risk for this disease. This information should be used to aid in the informed consent process for patients presenting to discuss management of textured breast implants.

Introduction Traumatic intercalary defects of the tibia may be effectively managed with the free fibula flap. However, any alteration of limb alignment with residual bony angular deformity of the tibia must be also addressed. We describe the use of the free fibula flap in conjunction with external fixation to allow residual deformity correction and patient mobilization ambulation during healing of the free flap. Methods Retrospective medical record review was conducted of patients with segmental tibial defects greater than 7 cm who underwent reconstruction with fibula free flap and simple pin-bar external fixation, followed by conversion to 6-axis computer-assisted multiplanar circular ring external fixation to correct residual bony deformity. Outcomes analyses included free flap complications, return to the operating room, complications associated with the external fixation, bony union, correction of residual deformity, amputation rate, visual analog pain scales, and patient satisfaction. Results Eight patients (8 tibiae) underwent reconstruction. Mean tibial bone defect was 10.2 cm; all limbs had soft-tissue defects (mean size, 138 cm). Free fibula grafts were harvested as osteocutaneous or osteomyocutaneous flaps (average length, 12 cm). Complications included 1 delayed union and 3 (37.5%) patients readmitted for graft fracture. Ultimately, 100% of patients achieved graft union with satisfactory correction of residual limb deformity. Limb salvage rate was 100%. Discussion Management of segmental tibial bone loss utilizing initial simple external fixation and microsurgical reconstruction followed by application of computer-assisted circular external fixator may provide a reliable reconstructive protocol for posttraumatic tibial defects with residual bone malalignment.

BACKGROUND Rates of autologous breast reconstruction are stagnant compared with prosthetic techniques. Insufficient physician payment for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction is one possible explanation. The payment difference between governmental and commercial payers creates a natural experiment to evaluate its impact on method of reconstruction. This study assessed the influence of physician payment differences for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction and implants by insurance type on the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction. METHODS The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for women undergoing immediate autologous or implant breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2014. Univariate analyses compared demographic and clinical characteristics between different reconstructive approaches. Logistic regression explored the relative impact of insurance type and physician payments on breast reconstruction modality. RESULTS Of the women in this study, 82.7 percent had commercial and 17.3 percent had governmental insurance. Implants were performed in 80 percent of women, whereas 20 percent underwent microsurgical autologous reconstruction. Women with Medicaid versus commercial insurance were less likely to undergo microsurgical reconstruction (16.4 percent versus 20.3 percent; p = 0.063). Commercial insurance, older age, and obesity independently increased the odds of microsurgical reconstruction (p < 0.01). When comparing median physician payments, governmental payers reimbursed 78 percent and 63 percent less than commercial payers for microsurgical reconstruction ($1831 versus $8435) and implants ($1249 versus $3359, respectively). Stratified analysis demonstrated that as physician payment increased, the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction increased, independent of insurance type (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Women with governmental insurance had lower odds of undergoing microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction compared with commercial payers. Regardless of payer, greater reimbursement for microsurgical reconstruction increased the likelihood of microsurgical reconstruction. Current microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction reimbursements may not be commensurate with physician effort when compared to prosthetic techniques. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Risk, II.

To better understand the long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in satisfaction and health-related quality of life (QOL) following post-mastectomy reconstruction (PMR) using the BREAST-Q, comparing PROs from patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) or autologous breast reconstruction (ABR).Multiple studies have demonstrated growth in mastectomy rates and concurrent increase in PMR utilization. However, most studies examining PMR PROs focus on short postoperative time periods-mainly within 2 years.BREAST-Q scores from IBR or ABR patients at a tertiary center were prospectively collected from 2009 to 2017. Mean scores and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for satisfaction with breast, satisfaction with outcome, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being of the chest, and sexual well-being. Satisfaction with breasts and physical well-being of the chest were compared using regression models at postoperative years 1, 3, 5, and 7.Overall, 3268 patients were included, with 336 undergoing ABR and 2932 undergoing IBR. Regression analysis demonstrated that ABR patients had greater postoperative satisfaction with breast scores at all timepoints compared with IBR patients. Postoperative radiation and mental illness adversely impacted satisfaction with breast scores. Furthermore, mental illness impacted physical wellbeing of the chest at all timepoints. IBR patients had satisfaction scores that remained stable over the study period.This study presents the largest prospective examination of PROs in PMR to date. Patients who opted for ABR had significantly higher satisfaction with their breast and QOL at each assessed time point, but IBR patients had stable long-term satisfaction and QOL postoperatively.

INTRODUCTION: There is a subset of patients who initially had implant based breast reconstruction but later change to autologous reconstruction after failure of the implant reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to examine our series of patients in whom autologous reconstruction was performed after initial failed implant reconstruction, using the BREAST-Q to examine patient satisfaction and quality of life. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective chart review of a prospectively maintained database was performed as well as evaluation of BREAST-Q surveys. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent autologous breast reconstruction following failed implant based reconstruction with 192 total flaps. Failure of implant reconstruction was defined as follows: capsular contracture causing pain and/or cosmetic deformity (n=106, 77%), dissatisfaction with the aesthetic result without capsular contracture (n=15, 11%), impending exposure of the implant/infection (n=8, 6%), and unknown (n=8, 6%). Complications requiring operative intervention included: partial flap loss (n=5, 3%), hematoma (n=5, 3%), vascular compromise requiring intervention for salvage (n=2, 1%), and total flap loss (n=1, 1%). Thirty-four patients (23%) had BREAST-Q surveys available for analysis both during implant and autologous phases of reconstruction. There was a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with appearance of breasts(p