Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life after Four Common Surgical Treatment Options for Breast Cancer and the Effect of Complications: A Retrospective Patient-Reported Survey among 1871 Patients

Background: Differences in quality-of-life outcomes after different surgical breast cancer treatment options, including breast reconstruction, are relevant for counseling individual patients in clinical decision-making, and for (societal) evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analyses. However, current literature shows contradictory results, because of use of different patient-reported outcome measures and study designs with limited patient numbers. The authors set out to improve this evidence using patient-reported outcome measures in a large, cross-sectional study for different surgical breast cancer treatment options. Methods: Quality of life was assessed through the EQ-5D-5L, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and BR23, and the BREAST-Q. Patients with different treatments were compared after propensity-weighted adjustment of pretreatment differences. The EQ-5D was used to value the effect of surgical complications. Results: A total of 1871 breast cancer patients participated (breast-conserving surgery, n = 615; mastectomy, n = 507; autologous reconstruction, n = 330; and implant-based reconstruction, n = 419). Mastectomy patients reported the lowest EQ-5D score (mastectomy, 0.805, breast-conserving surgery, 0.844; autologous reconstruction, 0.849; and implant-based reconstruction, 0.850) and functioning scores of the C30 questionnaire. On the BREAST-Q, autologous reconstruction patients had higher mean Satisfaction with Outcome, Satisfaction with Breasts, and Sexual Well-being scores than implant-based reconstruction patients. Complications in autologous reconstruction patients resulted in a substantially lower quality of life than in implant-based reconstruction patients. Conclusions: This study shows the added value of breast conservation and reconstruction compared with mastectomy; however, differences among breastconserving surgery, implant-based reconstruction, and autologous breast reconstruction were subtle. Complications resulted in poorer health-related quality of life. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 146: 1, 2020.

Optimization of wear loss in silicon nitride (Si3N4)–hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) composite using DoE–Taguchi method

Introduction The contacting surfaces subjected to progressive loss of material known as ‘wear,’ which is unavoidable between contacting surfaces. Similar kind of phenomenon observed in the human body in various joints where sliding/rolling contact takes place in contacting parts, leading to loss of material. This is a serious issue related to replaced joint or artificial joint. Case description Out of the various material combinations proposed for artificial joint or joint replacement Si3N4 against Al2O3 is one of in ceramic on ceramic category. Minimizing the wear loss of Si3N4 is a prime requirement to avoid aseptic loosening of artificial joint and extending life of joint. Discussion and evaluation In this paper, an attempt has been made to investigate the wear loss behavior of Si3N4–hBN composite and evaluate the effect of hBN addition in Si3N4 to minimize the wear loss. DoE–Taguchi technique is used to plan and analyze experiments. Conclusion Analysis of experimental results proposes 15 N load and 8 % of hBN addition in Si3N4 is optimum to minimize wear loss against alumina

ESPRAS Survey on Continuing Education in Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery in Europe

Background Specialty training in plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery is a prerequisite for safe and effective provision of care. The aim of this study was to assess and portray similarities and differences in the continuing education and specialization in plastic surgery in Europe. Material and Methods A detailed questionnaire was designed and distributed utilizing an online survey administration software. Questions addressed core items regarding continuing education and specialization in plastic surgery in Europe. Participants were addressed directly via the European Leadership Forum (ELF) of the European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS). All participants had detailed knowledge of the organization and management of plastic surgical training in their respective country. Results The survey was completed by 29 participants from 23 European countries. During specialization, plastic surgeons in Europe are trained in advanced tissue transfer and repair and aesthetic principles in all parts of the human body and within several subspecialties. Moreover, rotations in intensive as well as emergency care are compulsory in most European countries. Board certification is only provided for surgeons who have had multiple years of training regulated by a national board, who provide evidence of individually performed operative procedures in several anatomical regions and subspecialties, and who pass a final oral and/or written examination. Conclusion Board certified plastic surgeons meet the highest degree of qualification, are trained in all parts of the body and in the management of complications. The standard of continuing education and qualification of European plastic surgeons is high, providing an excellent level of plastic surgical care throughout Europe

Defining Quality Indicators for Breast Device Surgery: Using Registries for Global Benchmarking

Background: Breast device registries monitor devices encompassing breast implants, tissue expanders and dermal matrices, and the quality of care and patient outcomes for breast device surgery. Defining a standard set of quality indicators and risk adjustment factors will enable consistency and adjustment for case-mix in benchmarking quality of care across breast implant registries. This study aimed to develop a set of quality indicators to enable assessment and reporting of quality of care for breast device surgery which can be applied globally. Methods: A scoping literature review was undertaken, and potential quality indicators were identified. Consensus on the final list of quality indicators was obtained using a modified Delphi approach. This process involved a series of online surveys, and teleconferences over 6 months. The Delphi panel included participants from various countries and representation from surgical specialty groups including breast and general surgeons, plastic and reconstructive surgeons, cosmetic surgeons, a breast-care nurse, a consumer, a devices regulator (Therapeutic Goods Administration), and a biostatistician. A total of 12 candidate indicators were proposed: Intraoperative antibiotic wash, intraoperative antiseptic wash, preoperative antibiotics, nipple shields, surgical plane, volume of implant, funnels, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, time to revision, reoperation due to complications, patient satisfaction, and volume of activity. Results: Three of the 12 proposed indicators were endorsed by the panel: preoperative intravenous antibiotics, reoperation due to complication, and patient reported outcome measures. Conclusion: The 3 endorsed quality indicator measures will enable breast device registries to standardize benchmarking of care internationally for patients undergoing breast device surgery

International lower limb collaborative (INTELLECT) study: a multicentre, international retrospective audit of lower extremity open fractures

Trauma remains a major cause of mortality and disability across the world1, with a higher burden in developing nations2. Open lower extremity injuries are devastating events from a physical3, mental health4, and socioeconomic5 standpoint. The potential sequelae, including risk of chronic infection and amputation, can lead to delayed recovery and major disability6. This international study aimed to describe global disparities, timely intervention, guideline-directed care, and economic aspects of open lower limb injuries