ADVANCED AUTOLOGOUS LOWER DERMAL SLING TECHNIQUE FOR IMMEDIATE BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERY IN SMALL AND NON-PTOTIC BREASTS

Background: Breast reconstruction with an autologous lower dermal sling (ALDS) is an established one-stage procedure in patients with moderate to large ptotic breasts. However, this technique is difficult to perform in small and non/minimally ptotic breasts. We describe our experiences from a single institution about a novel Advanced Autologous Lower Dermal Sling (A-ALDS) technique for reconstruction in small breasts. Methods: We performed one stage nipple/skin sparing mastectomies in 61 patients with immediate reconstruction either by conventional immediate breast reconstruction surgery or A-ALDS technique. Results: Mean age of study patients was 46.9 years. We observed significantly better cosmetic score and lower immediate complication rate vis-a-vis skin necrosis, implant loss with the A-ALDS technique (i.e., nil versus 3 in Conventional Immediate Breast Reconstruction Surgery -IBRS). 40 patients completed 12 months follow-up. The PROMs- Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (Breast-Q) revealed good to excellent scores for satisfaction with breast, cosmetic outcome and psychosocial well-being in patients operated with both these techniques. However, sexual well-being was significantly better in the A-ALDS group. Conclusion: The A-ALDS is a novel, cost-effective and safe technique for immediate one stage implant-based reconstruction for small breasts. It provides a dermal barrier flap and hence, ensures less complications, excellent cosmetic results and patient satisfaction.

O77: DOES MESH IMPROVE PATIENT SATISFACTION AND HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER IMPLANT-BASED BREAST RECONSTRUCTION? A MULTICENTRE PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

Introduction Biological and synthetic meshes may improve outcomes of immediate IBBR by facilitating single-stage direct-to-implant procedures. However, high-quality supporting evidence is limited, particularly regarding PROs. Method 2108 consecutive women undergoing IBBR at 81 centres were prospectively recruited between 2014-2016. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected. An 18-month questionnaire assessed PROs using the validated BREAST-Q and a five-point Likert scale rating of overall reconstructive outcome. The impacts of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically-relevant confounders and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre. The reference group was two- stage submuscular reconstruction without mesh. Result 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. 67 patients underwent two-stage submuscular reconstruction; 764 patients received subpectoral reconstructions with biological mesh (n=495) synthetic mesh (n=95) or dermal sling (n=174). 14 patients underwent prepectoral reconstructions (introduced late in the study). Compared with two-stage reconstructions, no differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures (p>0.05). However, prepectoral IBBR patients reported better satisfaction with breasts (difference=6.63, 95% confidence interval[1.65–11.61], p=0.009). Outcomes were similar to those in the NMBRA 2008/9 cohort, which included submuscular procedures only. Conclusion This study does not suggest that mesh improves PROs of IBBR. It provides early data supporting improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstructions. Future trials are needed to robustly evaluate prepectoral techniques. Abbrev IBBR: implant-based breast reconstruction, PRO: patient-reported outcome, NMBRA: National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit Take-home message Although mesh-assisted techniques have become widely adopted, this large, prospective, multicentre cohort study does not suggest that mesh improves patient-reported outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction compared with standard submuscular techniques. However, it provides early data to support improved satisfaction with breasts in the prepectoral setting, which now requires robust evaluation.

Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh

Background Biological and synthetic meshes may improve the outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) by facilitating single-stage procedures and improving cosmesis. Supporting evidence is, however, limited. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of biological and synthetic mesh on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of IBBR 18 months after surgery. Methods Consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR between February 2014 and June 2016 were recruited to the study. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients received validated BREAST-Q questionnaires at 18 months. The impact of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically relevant confounders, and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre. Results A total of 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. Of these, 67 women underwent two-stage submuscular reconstructions. Some 764 patients had a submuscular reconstruction with biological mesh (495 women), synthetic mesh (95) or dermal sling (174). Fourteen patients had a prepectoral reconstruction. Compared with two-stage submuscular reconstructions, no significant differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures. However, patients undergoing prepectoral IBBR reported better satisfaction with breasts (adjusted mean difference +6.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.65 to11.61; P = 0.009). PROs were similar to those in the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2008–2009 cohort, which included two-stage submuscular procedures only. Conclusion This study found no difference in PROs of subpectoral IBBR with or without biological or synthetic mesh, but provides early data to suggest improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstruction. Robust evaluation is required before this approach can be adopted as standard practice.