Search

Your search keyword '"Thrush, S."' showing total 312 results
Start Over Author "Thrush, S."
312 results on '"Thrush, S."'

6. Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire

Author

Barnes, N.L.P., Blazeby, J.M., Branford, O.A., Conroy, E.J., Cutress, R.I., Gardiner, M.D., Holcombe, C., Jain, A., McEvoy, K., Mills, N., Mylvaganam, S., Potter, S., Skillman, J.M., Teasdale, E.M., Thrush, S., Whisker, L.J., Williamson, P.R., Tang, L., Nguyen, D., Johnson, R., Muralikrishnan, V., Chopra, S., Reid, A., Benyon, S., Murphy, C., Soliman, F., Lefemine, V., Saha, S., Ogedegbe, K., Olyinka, O.S., Dicks, J.R., Manoloudakis, N., Conroy, F., Irwin, G., McIntosh, S., Michalakis, I., Hignett, S., Linforth, R., Rathinaezhil, R., Osman, H., Anesti, K., Griffiths, M., Jacklin, R., Waterworth, A., Foulkes, R., Davies, E., Bisarya, K., Allan, A., Leon-Villapalos, J., Mazari, F.A.K., Azmy, I., George, S., Fahmy, F.S., Hargreaves, A., Seward, J., Henton, J., Collin, T., Mallon, P., Turner, J., Sarakbi, W., Athanasiou, I., Rogers, C., Youssef, M., Graja, T., Huf, S., Deol, H., Brindle, R., Gawne, S., Egbeare, D., Dash, I., Galea, M., Laws, S., Tayeh, S., Parvanta, L., Down, S., Westbroek, D., Roberts, J.W., Massey, J., Turton, P., Achuthan, R., Fawzy, M., Dickson, M., Carmichael, A.R., Akingboye, A., James, R., Kirkpatrick, K., Nael, E., Vidya, R., Thorne, A., Rostom, M., Depasquale, I., Cawthorn, S.J., Gangamihardja, T., Joglekar, S., Smith, J., Halka, A., MacMillan, D., Clark, S., Pearce, B., Mansfield, L., King, I., Hazari, A., Smith, B., Volleamere, A.J., Ferguson, D., Barnes, N., Knight, A., MacNeill, F., Conway, A., Irvine, T., Mylavaganam, S., Dunne, N., Kohlhardt, S., Hoo, C., Kirk, S., Hu, J., Ledwidge, S., Tang, S., Banerjee, D., Waheed, S., Voynov, V., Soumian, S., Henderson, J., Harvey, J., Robertson, S., Waters, R., Carbone, A., Skillman, J., Farooq, Ansar, Tafazal, H., Clarke, D., Cocker, D., Lai, L.M., Winter Beatty, J., Barkeji, M., Vinayagam, R., Mullan, M., Osborne, C., Baker, E., Piper, J., Mylvaganam, Senthurun, Conroy, Elizabeth, Williamson, Paula R., Barnes, Nicola L.P., Cutress, Ramsey I., Gardiner, Matthew D., Jain, Abhilash, Skillman, Joanna M., Thrush, Steven, Whisker, Lisa J., Blazeby, Jane M., Potter, Shelley, and Holcombe, Christopher

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

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

Author

Sewart, E, Turner, NL, Conroy, EJ, Cutress, RI, Skillman, J, Whisker, L, Thrush, S, Barnes, N, Holcombe, C, Potter, S, Eval, Implant Breast Reconstruction, and Collabor, Breast Reconstruction Res

Subjects
Adult, medicine.medical_specialty, Sling (implant), Adolescent, medicine.medical_treatment, Breast Neoplasms, 03 medical and health sciences, Young Adult, 0302 clinical medicine, Postoperative Complications, medicine, Humans, 030212 general & internal medicine, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Prospective Studies, Breast Implantation, Mastectomy, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, business.industry, Cosmesis, General Medicine, Middle Aged, Surgical Mesh, United Kingdom, Surgery, Surgical mesh, Logistic Models, Patient Satisfaction, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Cohort, Mammaplasty, Linear Models, Original Article, Female, Breast reconstruction, Complication, business, AcademicSubjects/MED00010
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., Biological and synthetic mesh may improve the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction, but evidence is lacking. PROs were evaluated in 891 women having implant reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh at 18 months after surgery using the validated BREAST-Q questionnaire. Mesh use did not improve PROs in subpectoral reconstruction, but women undergoing prepectoral reconstruction reported greater satisfaction with the outcomes of surgery. prepectoral may be better

Published
2021

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results