Three and twelve-month analysis of the PROM-Q study: comparison of patient-reported outcome measures using the BREAST-Q questionnaire in pre- vs. sub-pectoral implant-based immediate breast reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is being increasingly performed with implant placed above the pectoral muscle (pre-pectoral), instead of below the pectoral muscle (sub-pectoral). Currently, there is a lack of comparative data on clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- vs. sub-pectoral IBR. We investigated whether this difference in surgical approach influenced clinical or patient-perceived outcomes. METHODS: This prospective non-randomised longitudinal cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04842240) recruited patients undergoing immediate IBR at the Leeds Breast Unit (Sep 2019-Sep 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics and post-operative complications. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were collected using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at baseline, 2 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients underwent IBR (46 patients pre-pectoral; 59% vs. 32 patients sub-pectoral; 41%). Similar complication rates were observed (15.2% pre-pectoral vs. 9.4% sub-pectoral; p = 0.44). Overall implant loss rate was 3.8% (6.5% pre-pectoral vs. 0% sub-pectoral; p = 0.13). Respective median Breast-Q scores for pre- and sub-pectoral IBR at 3 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 48; p = 0.01), psychosocial well-being (60 vs. 57; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 76; p = 0.53), and Animation Q scores (73 vs. 76; p = 0.45). Respective Breast-Q scores at 12 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 53; p = 0.3), psychosocial well-being (59 vs. 60; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 78; p = 0.18), and Animation Q scores (69 vs. 73; p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates equivalent clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- and sub-pectoral IBR. The study findings can be utilised to aid informed decision making regarding either surgical option.

Breast Cancer Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic Peak in the UK: Operative Outcomes.

Introduction  The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread changes in delivery of breast cancer care, aiming to protect vulnerable patients whilst minimising compromise to oncological outcomes. This multicentre observational study aimed to establish early surgical outcomes from breast cancer surgery performed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Materials and methods  Data were collected on consecutive patients that underwent breast surgery in four units between 16 March and 24 April 2020. Outcome data at 30 days post-operation were collected, including documented COVID-19 cases in patients and reported cases in healthcare workers directly involved in their care. Recommended modifications to practice to reduce COVID-19 transmission risk, both to patients and healthcare workers in each centre, are described.  Results  A total of 202 patients underwent surgery in four hospitals delivering breast services in the West Yorkshire region over the six-week period at the peak of the pandemic. The age ranged from 28 to 91 years (median 57, interquartile range, 48-65) with 22% having co-morbidities linked to COVID-19, e.g. diabetes or respiratory disease. No patients presented post-operatively with COVID-19 symptoms and at 30 days there had not been any identified COVID-19 cases. There were no unexpected critical care admissions or deaths. One healthcare worker involved in the delivery of breast surgery was diagnosed with COVID-19 during this time and made an uneventful recovery.  Conclusion  Breast cancer surgery, in selected groups and with meticulous adherence to measures designed to reduce COVID-19 transmission, does not appear to be associated with elevated risk to patients or healthcare workers.

Analysis of Secondary Surgeries after Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Cancer Compared with Risk Reduction.

This study sets out to compare reconstructive practice between patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for cancer and those who opted for risk reduction (RR), with an emphasis on examining patterns of secondary surgery. METHODS: Data collection was performed for patients undergoing mastectomy and IBR at a teaching hospital breast unit (2013-2016). RESULTS: In total, 299 patients underwent IBR (76% cancer versus 24% RR). Implant-based IBR rate was similar in both groups (58% cancer versus 63% RR). Reconstruction loss (5.3% cancer versus 4.2% RR) and complication (16% cancer versus 12.9% RR) rates were similar. Cancer patients were more likely to undergo secondary surgery (68.4% versus 56.3%; P = 0.025), including contralateral symmetrization (22.8% versus 0%) and conversion to autologous reconstruction (5.7% versus 1.4%). Secondary surgeries were mostly planned for cancer patients (72% planned versus 28% unplanned), with rates unaffected by adjuvant therapies. This distribution was different in RR patients (51.3% planned versus 48.7% unplanned). The commonest secondary procedure was lipomodeling (19.7% cancer versus 23.9% RR). For cancer patients, complications resulted in a significantly higher unplanned secondary surgery rate (82.5% versus 38.8%; P = 0.001) than patients without complications. This was not evident in the RR patients, where complications did not lead to a significantly higher unplanned surgery rate (58.9% versus 35.2%; P = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the secondary surgeries were planned for cancer patients. However, complications led to a significantly higher rate of unplanned secondary surgery. Approximately 1 in 4 RR patients received unplanned secondary surgery, which may be driven by the desire to achieve an optimal aesthetic outcome.

Alcohol hand abuse: a cross-sectional survey of skin complaints and usage patterns at a large UK teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the regular use of alcohol hand gel was having a detrimental effect on hands of healthcare professionals and, if so, to what extent. The study also aimed to establish a link between individuals who felt their hands were suffering from persistent exposure to the gel and those who actively avoided using the gel. DESIGN: A short descriptive questionnaire was distributed to healthcare professionals and those working within clinical areas within one trust (two teaching hospitals). SETTING: Staff that worked or had duties within clinical areas that necessitated the use of alcohol hand gel. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent via email to all staff on the email database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: To determine the number of staff that developed new onset skin conditions since the introduction of alcohol hand gel and of what proportion of this number actively or considered avoiding the hand gel. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned for analysis by 399 respondents. Eighty-eight percent of respondents felt that they had developed new onset skin conditions as a consequence of maintaining hand hygiene protocols. Nurses were the highest users of the hand gel, but interestingly were also the highest group to avoid or consider avoiding the hand gel (52% compared with 28%, 26% and 44% in the doctors, secretaries and healthcare assistants groups, respectively) .Thus indicating more frequent use may cause increased problems. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that 88% of respondents stated that they had new-onset skin problems, of which half-felt that alcohol gel was the main contributing factor. There was a detrimental effect on compliance with alcohol gel hand hygiene protocols in this group. This reflects the real life difficulties of staff in their endeavour to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Action is needed to improve the compliance with such a simple task and ensure that all is done to reduce nosocomial infection and reduce the potential financial burden.