Background: Complication rates and surgical outcomes are well reported for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) using supportive materials for the inferior pole of the breast. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are underrepresented. The aim of this study was to compare PRO in IBBR using implants alone or in combination with a synthetic mesh. Methods and Methods: PRO was measured in patients undergoing IBBR alone or in combination with a titanium-covered polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP® Bra). In this non-randomized observational trial PRO was retrospectively assessed using the validated self-reporting BREAST-Q. The raw responses of all questions applied in each domain and transformed BREAST-Q data using the Q-Score are presented. Results: Of 90 eligible women, 42 received IBBR alone and 48 received IBBR in combination with mesh. No differences in complication rates were observed. The return rate was 67.7 % and was comparable between the groups (p = 0.117). PRO revealed no differences regarding satisfaction with breast shape (p = 0.079), outcome (p = 0.604), nipple sensitivity (p = 0.502), preoperative information (p = 0.195), office staff (p = 0.462), psychosocial well-being (p = 0.370), sexual well-being (p = 0.508) and physical well-being (p = 0.654). Significant differences were noted regarding satisfaction with the surgeon (p = 0.013) and medical staff (p = 0.035) as well as the response behavior of certain questions of the sub-domains, thus helping to further stratify PRO with regards to aesthetic outcome. However, no differences were observed in the main BREAST-Q results. Conclusion: Use of the TiLOOP® Bra in IBBR results in comparable BREAST-Q scores compared with IBBR alone. Evaluating the BREAST-Q sub-domains helps to stratify PRO more profoundly and assists in interpreting the overall results and specific research questions.
Background: Complication rates and surgical outcomes are well reported for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) using supportive materials for the inferior pole of the breast. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are underrepresented. The aim of this study was to compare PRO in IBBR using implants alone or in combination with a synthetic mesh. Methods and Methods: PRO was measured in patients undergoing IBBR alone or in combination with a titanium-covered polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP® Bra). In this non-randomized observational trial PRO was retrospectively assessed using the validated self-reporting BREAST-Q. The raw responses of all questions applied in each domain and transformed BREAST-Q data using the Q-Score are presented. Results: Of 90 eligible women, 42 received IBBR alone and 48 received IBBR in combination with mesh. No differences in complication rates were observed. The return rate was 67.7 % and was comparable between the groups (p = 0.117). PRO revealed no differences regarding satisfaction with breast shape (p = 0.079), outcome (p = 0.604), nipple sensitivity (p = 0.502), preoperative information (p = 0.195), office staff (p = 0.462), psychosocial well-being (p = 0.370), sexual well-being (p = 0.508) and physical well-being (p = 0.654). Significant differences were noted regarding satisfaction with the surgeon (p = 0.013) and medical staff (p = 0.035) as well as the response behavior of certain questions of the sub-domains, thus helping to further stratify PRO with regards to aesthetic outcome. However, no differences were observed in the main BREAST-Q results. Conclusion: Use of the TiLOOP® Bra in IBBR results in comparable BREAST-Q scores compared with IBBR alone. Evaluating the BREAST-Q sub-domains helps to stratify PRO more profoundly and assists in interpreting the overall results and specific research questions.
Entities:
Keywords:
BREAST-Q; TiLOOP® Bra; breast reconstruction; mesh; patient-reported outcome; quality of life
Authors: T Wachter; M Edlinger; C Foerg; G Djedovic; C Mayerl; J Kinzl; T Bauer; D Wolfram Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Srinivas M Susarla; Ingrid Ganske; Lydia Helliwell; Donald Morris; Elof Eriksson; Yoon S Chun Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Yassir Eltahir; Lisanne L C H Werners; Marieke M Dreise; Ingeborg A Zeijlmans van Emmichoven; Paul M N Werker; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Markus Wallwiener; Felix Heindl; Sara Y Brucker; Florin-Andrei Taran; Andreas Hartkopf; Friedrich Overkamp; Hans-Christian Kolberg; Peyman Hadji; Hans Tesch; Johannes Ettl; Michael P Lux; Claudia Rauh; Simon Blum; Naiba Nabieva; Tobias F Brodkorb; Cornelia Faschingbauer; Hanna Langemann; Carla Schulmeyer; Bernhard Volz; Matthias Rübner; Diana Lüftner; Volkmar Müller; Erik Belleville; Wolfgang Janni; Tanja N Fehm; Diethelm Wallwiener; Thomas Ganslandt; Matthias W Beckmann; Andreas Schneeweiss; Peter A Fasching; Paul Gass Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Salem Mohammad Alshammari; Mohammed Yousef Aldossary; Khaled Almutairi; Abdulaziz Almulhim; Gousay Alkhazmari; Mohammed Alyaqout; Hussain Abrar Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2019-02-16