Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015; 75(07): 692-701
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1546218
Original Article
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Alone or in Combination with a Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh – A Detailed Analysis of the BREAST-Q and Overview of the Literature

Patienteneinschätzung und Zufriedenheit (Patient-Reported Outcomes) nach implantatgestützter Brustrekonstruktion alleine oder in Kombination mit einem titanbeschichteten Polypropylene-Netz – eine detaillierte Analyse des BREAST-Q und Literaturüberblick
M. Dieterich
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology – Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock
,
J. Angres
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology – Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock
,
J. Stubert
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology – Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock
,
A. Stachs
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology – Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock
,
T. Reimer
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology – Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock
,
B. Gerber
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology – Breast Unit, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, University of Rostock, Rostock
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 05 March 2015
revised 21 April 2015

accepted 15 May 2015

Publication Date:
30 July 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Studien zur Patienteneinschätzung und Zufriedenheit (Patient-Reported Outcomes [PRO]) sind im Rahmen der implantatgestützten Brustrekonstruktion (BR) mit Materialien zur Stabilisierung des unteren Brustpols unterrepräsentiert. Ziel dieser Arbeit war der Vergleich von PRO in der implantatgestützten BR mit oder ohne Anwendung eines synthetischen Netzes. Material und Methoden: PRO wurde bei Patientinnen mit implantatgestützten BR alleine oder in Kombination mit einem titanbeschichteten Polypropylene-Netz (TiLOOP® Bra) untersucht. Mithilfe des selbstberichtenden BREAST-Q-Fragebogens wurde in dieser nicht randomisierten Beobachtungsstudie PRO restrospektiv ausgewertet. Rohscores aller Fragen der einzelnen Subdomains und die mit dem Q-Score transformierten BREAST-Q-Daten werden präsentiert. Ergebnisse: Von 90 Patientinnen erhielten 42 eine BR mit Implantaten alleine und 48 eine Implantatrekonstruktion mit Netz. Kein Unterschied in der Komplikationsrate wurde beobachtet. Die Rücklaufquote des Fragebogens lag bei 67,7 % und war zwischen den Gruppen vergleichbar (p = 0,117). PRO zeigte keine Unterschiede bez. Brustform (p = 0,079), Ergebnis (p = 0,604), Sensitivität des Nippels (p = 0,502), präoperativer Aufklärung (p = 0,195), Praxispersonal (p = 0,462), psychosozialer Zufriedenheit (p = 0,370), sexueller Zufriedenheit (p = 0,508) und physischer Zufriedenheit (p = 0,654). Signifikante Unterschiede zeigen sich bei Zufriedenheit mit Operateur (p = 0,013), medizinischem Personal (p = 0,035) sowie im Antwortverhalten bestimmter Fragen der Subdomains hilfreich, um PRO im Hinblick auf das ästhetische Ergebnis weiter zu stratifizieren. Zusammenfassung: Die Verwendung von TiLOOP® Bra in der implantatgestützten BR resultiert in vergleichbaren BREAST-Q Ergebnissen im Vergleich zur BR mit Implantaten allein. Die Untersuchung der Subdomains hilft, PRO weiter zu stratifizieren, und ist nützlich in der Interpretation der Gesamtergebnisse und spezifischer Forschungsfragen.

Key words

breast reconstruction - mesh - quality of life - TiLOOP® Bra - BREAST-Q - patient-reported outcome

Schlüsselwörter

Brustrekonstruktion - Netz - Lebensqualität - TiLOOP® Bra - BREAST-Q - Patientenzufriedenheit
 

  • References

  • 1 Dieterich M, Stubert J, Reimer T et al. Influence of lifestyle factors on breast cancer risk. Breast Care (Basel) 2014; 9: 407-414
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dieterich M, Gerber B. Patient selection and technical considerations in nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2011; 3: 79-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ganz PA. Psychological and social aspects of breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 2008; 22: 642-646 650, discussion 650–653
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gurunluoglu R, Gurunluoglu A, Williams SA et al. Current trends in breast reconstruction: survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2010. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70: 103-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dieterich M, Faridi A. Biological matrices and synthetic meshes used in implant-based breast reconstruction – a review of products available in Germany. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2013; 73: 1100-1106
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Scheflan M, Colwell AS. Tissue reinforcement in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014; 2: e192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S et al. A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 28-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dieterich M, Stubert J, Gerber B et al. Biocompatibility, cell growth and clinical relevance of synthetic meshes and biological matrixes for internal support in implant-based breast reconstruction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 1371-1379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Helms RL, OʼHea EL, Corso M. Body image issues in women with breast cancer. Psychol Health Med 2008; 13: 313-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM et al. A closer look at the BREAST-Q(©). Clin Plast Surg 2013; 40: 287-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dieterich M, Paepke S, Zwiefel K et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP Bra): a multicenter study of 231 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 8e-19e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dieterich M, Reimer T, Dieterich H et al. A short-term follow-up of implant based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop(®) Bra). Eur J Surg Oncol 2012; 38: 1225-1230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dieterich M, Dieterich H, Nestle-Krämling C et al. Certification of breast surgeons in Germany – AWO-gyn curriculum in an international comparison. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2009; 69: 987-991
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20: 250-278 quiz 279–280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 345-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wachter T, Edlinger M, Foerg C et al. Differences between patients and medical professionals in the evaluation of aesthetic outcome following breast reconstruction with implants. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67: 1111-1117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gerber B, Krause A, Kuchenmeister I et al. Skin sparing mastectomy with autologous immediate reconstruction: oncological risks and aesthetic results. Zentralbl Gynakol 2000; 122: 476-482
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lee M, Miteff K. The scarless latissimus dorsi flap provides effective lower pole prosthetic coverage in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014; 2: e147
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Albornoz CR, Matros E, McCarthy CM et al. Implant breast reconstruction and radiation: a multicenter analysis of long-term health-related quality of life and satisfaction. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 2159-2164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Davis GB, Lang JE, Peric M et al. Breast reconstruction satisfaction rates at a large county hospital. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72 (Suppl. 01) S61-S65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Susarla SM, Ganske I, Helliwell L et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in immediate single-stage versus two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 135: 1e-8e
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Eltahir Y, Werners LL, Dreise MM et al. Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 135: 43-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Liu C, Zhuang Y, Momeni A et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after microsurgical abdominal flap versus staged expander/implant breast reconstruction: a critical study of unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using patient-reported outcomes instrument BREAST-Q. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 146: 117-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Peled AW, Duralde E, Foster RD et al. Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate expander-implant reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 72 (Suppl. 01) S48-S52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sugrue R, MacGregor G, Sugrue M et al. An evaluation of patient reported outcomes following breast reconstruction utilizing Breast Q. Breast 2013; 22: 158-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Macadam SA, Ho AL, Lennox PA et al. Patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: a comparison of shaped cohesive gel and round cohesive gel implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 431-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Salgarello M, Visconti G, Barone-Adesi L et al. Inverted-T skin-reducing mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction using the submuscular-subfascial pocket. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 31-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Goyal A, Wu JM, Chandran VP et al. Outcome after autologous dermal sling-assisted immediate breast reconstruction. Br J Surg 2011; 98: 1267-1272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 McCarthy CM, Klassen AF, Cano SJ et al. Patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparison of saline and silicone implants. Cancer 2010; 116: 5584-5591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Macadam SA, Ho AL, Cook jr. EF et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes among saline and silicone implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 125: 761-771
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wang HY, Ali RS, Chen SC et al. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implant following skin-sparing mastectomy in Asian patients. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60: 362-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Stokes RB. Breast augmentation in thin women: patient satisfaction with saline-filled implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2004; 28: 153-157
    PubMedGoogle Scholar