Predictors of women's sexual outcomes after implant-based breast reconstruction

Objective: Although breast reconstruction has become an important treatment modality following mastectomy, few studies assessed predictors of postoperative sexual outcomes after breast reconstruction. Therefore, we aimed to study three sexual outcomes following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), and associate multiple biopsychosocial factors with these outcomes. Methods: Data collection was part of a multicenter prospective study on IBBR. A predictive model was tested including medical, background and psychological predictors, partner relationship factors and physical sexual function. Data collection included clinical and questionnaire data (preoperatively and 1 year following reconstruction) using the BREAST-Q Sexual well-being scale (BQ5), and questions regarding sexual dysfunction and sexual satisfaction questions (Female Sexual Function Index). Results: The study sample consisted of 88 women who underwent mastectomy and IBBR. Mean postoperative BQ5 scores were lower than before surgery (M = 58 [SD = 18] vs 65 [SD = 20]; P =.01, Wilks' Lamdba =.88). Sexual dysfunctions were related strongest to orgasm inability and vaginal lubrication issues. The tested models predicted 37%-46% of the sexual outcomes: sexual outcomes were mostly predicted by psychosocial well-being, physical sexual function and partner support. Preoperative sexual and psychosocial well-being were positively associated with postoperative sexual well-being (r = 0.45 and r = 0.47). Conclusions: Although moderately positive sexual outcomes were reported after IBBR, some women reported issues with vaginal lubrication, breast sensation and orgasm. Sexual dysfunctions were predicted by vaginal lubrication and medical treatments, while sexual well-being and satisfaction were more predicted by psychosocial well-being and partner support. We advocate supportive care that includes partners and psychosocial functioning to optimize sexual outcomes after IBBR

The aesthetic items scale: A tool for the evaluation of aesthetic outcome after breast reconstruction

__Background:__ Valid tools to assess aesthetic outcomes after breast reconstructive surgery are scarce. Previously a professional aesthetic assessment scale was introduced, the Aesthetic Items Scale (AIS). We aim to determine if this method is a valid and reliable tool to assess aesthetic outcome after breast reconstructive surgery. __Methods:__ The study population was consenting women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy with subsequent implant-based breast reconstruction. The aesthetic outcome with regard to breast volume, shape, symmetry, scars, and nipple areola complex was rated on a 5-point scale using standardized photographs to give a summed total score. Photographs were evaluated by the patient, 5 plastic surgeons, and 3 mammography nurses. An overall rating of aesthetic outcome on a 1-10 scale was given separately. We determined the intraclass correlation coefficient and assessed interobserver agreement. To assess validity, we calculated the correlation between total score and overall rating of aesthetic outcome. __Results:__ Interobserver reliability was highest between plastic surgeons for the subitem and overall scores and ranged between 0.56 and 0.82. The summed score of the AIS correlates strongly with the overall rating in professionals but not in patients. __Conclusions:__ The AIS is a valid and reliable method for evaluating aesthetic outcome of breast reconstruction by plastic surgeons. The results indicate that patients judge aesthetic outcome differently, taking into account factors that are not represented in the AIS. Professionals can use this method to evaluate surgical results, but other measurements are needed to map satisfaction of the patient with her breasts

Sexuality, a topic that surgeons should discuss with women before risk-reducing mastectomy and breast reconstruction

While sexual health is an important aspect of quality of life, sexual issues usually go unaddressed during patient-provider communication. Breast cancer treatments and specifically breast surgery impact women's sexual well-being. However, women do not receive adequate information on this subject. Women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction invariably reported that they had underestimated the impact of mastectomy and reconstruction on their sexuality, and expressed a need for information and creating realistic expectations pertaining to sexuality. Therefore, we urge breast surgeons to take the lead in addressing sexuality along with other health-related quality-of-life outcomes during pre-operative consultation

Patient-reported Outcomes after ADM-assisted Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Cross-sectional Study

Background: Although the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based reconstruction increases, there is a lack of studies evaluating patient-reported outcome measures after this reconstruction method. We aim to evaluate the patient satisfaction after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) in 1 of the largest series of patients undergoing ADM-assisted IBBR. Methods: Patients with ADM-assisted IBBR were invited to fill out the BREAST-Q, a validated and standardized questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction after a breast reconstruction. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient and surgical characteristics. Results: In total, 208 patients (38.4%) responded and reported a mean satisfaction of 70.6 ± 20.2 with their breasts and 78.0 ± 20.5 with the outcome. An overall complication rate of 7.7% was noted, with 1.5% severe complications leading to hospital readmission (0.5%) and implant removal (0.5%). Patients with complications and unilateral reconstruction for oncological reasons reported overall less satisfaction rates compared with patients with bilateral, preventive surgery, and an uncomplicated postoperative course. Strongly related domains indicate the importance of patient satisfaction with their breasts and outcome on psychosocial and sexual functioning and satisfaction with information on satisfaction with breasts, outcome, and surgeon. Conclusion: There is an increased demand for patient-reported outcome measures in a changing practice to which the opinion of the patient assumes a larger role. With high satisfaction rates, ADM-assisted IBBR is a valuable reconstruction method, provided that complication rates remain low. Hence, it should only be performed in a selected group of women

Is single-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (SSBR) with an acellular matrix safe?

Background: Acellular matrices (AM) might enable a direct single-stage breast reconstruction procedure resulting in an improved efficacy of the reconstruction phase for patients. Safety concerns are an important issue due to a recent study which shows that single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ resulted in more complications versus a two-stage reconstruction. Therefore, the goal of this study is to compare the short- and long-term complications of a single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of two types of AM (Strattice™ and Meso Biomatrix®) versus two-stage breast reconstruction without the use of an AM. Methods: Cohort study with single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ (n = 28) or Meso BioMatrix® (n = 20) or two-stage breast reconstruction without an AM (n = 36) at the Maastricht Academic Hospital, the Netherlands. All complications, in particular major complications with the need for re-admission to the hospital, re-exploration, and implant explantation, were the primary outcome measures. A 1-year follow-up was achieved for all patients. Results: Baseline characteristics of all 52 patients were similar between groups. There was a significantly higher complication rate in the single-stage AM groups with loss of the implant in 40.0% of the breasts from the Meso BioMatrix® group and in 10.7% of the Strattice™ group compared to no implant loss in the control group. Conclusions: This cohort study clearly suggests that the use of a single-stage breast reconstruction is not safe with the use of these AMs. Well-designed prospective studies that guarantee the safety of those matrices should be published before these AMs are used in implant-based surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III, risk / prognostic study

Patient-reported Outcomes after ADM-assisted Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Cross-sectional Study

Background:. Although the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based reconstruction increases, there is a lack of studies evaluating patient-reported outcome measures after this reconstruction method. We aim to evaluate the patient satisfaction after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) in 1 of the largest series of patients undergoing ADM-assisted IBBR. Methods:. Patients with ADM-assisted IBBR were invited to fill out the BREAST-Q, a validated and standardized questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction after a breast reconstruction. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient and surgical characteristics. Results:. In total, 208 patients (38.4%) responded and reported a mean satisfaction of 70.6 ± 20.2 with their breasts and 78.0 ± 20.5 with the outcome. An overall complication rate of 7.7% was noted, with 1.5% severe complications leading to hospital readmission (0.5%) and implant removal (0.5%). Patients with complications and unilateral reconstruction for oncological reasons reported overall less satisfaction rates compared with patients with bilateral, preventive surgery, and an uncomplicated postoperative course. Strongly related domains indicate the importance of patient satisfaction with their breasts and outcome on psychosocial and sexual functioning and satisfaction with information on satisfaction with breasts, outcome, and surgeon. Conclusion:. There is an increased demand for patient-reported outcome measures in a changing practice to which the opinion of the patient assumes a larger role. With high satisfaction rates, ADM-assisted IBBR is a valuable reconstruction method, provided that complication rates remain low. Hence, it should only be performed in a selected group of women

Discussing sexuality in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery: a national survey of current practice in the Netherlands

Background: Patient-reported outcomes have become increasingly important to assess the value of surgical procedures. Sexual function is a proven important constituent of quality of life, but is often overlooked by health care professionals. We aim to investigate to what extent plastic surgeons address or discuss issues concerning sexuality with their patients, and if there is a need for improvement. Methods: We developed a survey to assess whether topics pertaining to sexual function were discussed during plastic surgical consultations. In 2016, all 385 members of the Dutch Association for Plastic Surgery were invited via post mail to participate. Results: We received 106 completed surveys (27.5%). The median age of the respondents was 45 (29–66) years. Most participants (78.3%) indicated that they rarely to never discuss sexuality with their patients. Surgeons in the subspecialization gender and genital surgery discussed sexual function most frequently. Two thirds of all respondents indicated that their current knowledge on this topic was insufficient, yet there was generally no interest expressed in receiving additional training (78.6%). However, there was a need for proper patient brochures (43.4%) and an organized referral network (36.5%) regarding sexuality. Conclusions: In plastic surgery practice, sexuality appears to be a rarely discussed subject, with the gender and genital surgery subspecialties as the exception. Although professionals and patients emphasize the importance of sexuality, plastic surgeons express limited urge to be trained and prefer written patient information and referring patients to other healthcare professionals. The authors stimulate more education on sexuality during (continued) plastic surgery training. Level of Evidence: Not ratable

Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix:An open-label, phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Background The evidence justifying the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is limited. We did a prospective randomised trial to compare the safety of IBBR with an ADM immediately after mastectomy with that of two-stage IBBR. Methods We did an open-label, randomised, controlled trial in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible women were older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a gene mutation linked with breast cancer who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Randomisation was done electronically, stratifi ed per centre and in blocks of ten to achieve roughly balanced groups. Women were assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. The primary endpoint was quality of life and safety was assessed by the occurrence of adverse outcomes. Analyses were done per protocol with logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. This study is registered at Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR5446. Findings 142 women were enrolled between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, of whom 59 (91 breasts) in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and 62 (92 breasts) in the two-stage IBBR group were included in analyses. One-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with signifi cantly higher risk per breast of surgical complications (crude odds ratio 3.81, 95% CI 2.67-5.43, p<0.001), reoperation (3.38, 2.10-5.45, p<0.001), and removal of implant, ADM, or both (8.80, 8.24-9.40, p<0001) than two-stage IBBR. Severe (grade 3) adverse events occurred in 26 (29%) of 91 breasts in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and in fi ve (5%) of 92 in the two-stage IBBR group. The frequency of mild to moderate adverse events was similar in the two groups. Interpretation Immediate one-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with adverse events and should be considered very carefully. Understanding of selection of patients, risk factors, and surgical and postsurgical procedures needs to be improved