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.
No Thumbnail Available
All Authors
Rampal, R.
Jones, SJ.
Hartup, S.
Robertson, C.
Tahir, W.
Jones, SL.
McKenzie, S.
Savage, JA.
Kim, B.
LTHT Author
Rampal, Ritika
Hartup, Sue
Robertson, Clare
Tahir, Wasif
Jones, Sian
McKenzie, Shireen
Kim, Baek
Hartup, Sue
Robertson, Clare
Tahir, Wasif
Jones, Sian
McKenzie, Shireen
Kim, Baek
LTHT Department
Leeds Cancer Centre
Breast Surgery
General Surgery
Breast Surgery
General Surgery
Non Medic
Research Sister
Publication Date
2024
Item Type
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Language
Subject
Subject Headings
Abstract
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.
Journal
Breast Cancer Research & Treatment