PATIENT EXPERIENCE WITH DIFFERENT IMPLANT BREAST RECONSTRUCTION SURGERIES

Author(s)

Gabriel A1, Apostolides J2, Nickodem A3, Rad AN4, Patel V5, Zaw R6, Martin S7, Harris N7, Jones G8, Nahabedian MY9
1Plastic Surgery, Vancouver, WA, USA, 2Defy Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, San Diego, CA, USA, 3Plastic Surgery, Annandale, VA, USA, 4SHERBER+RAD, Washington DC and The Johns Hopkins Department of Plastic Surgery, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Allergan plc, Irvine, CA, USA, 6Allergan plc, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, UK, 7RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 8Illinois Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery, Peoria, IL, USA, 9VCU College of Medicine – Inova Branch, Falls Church, VA, USA

OBJECTIVES: Innovations in prosthetic breast reconstruction have led to new techniques for use following mastectomy. Current strategies focus on the variable location of the breast implant and include prepectoral (above the pectoralis major muscle), dual-plane (partial subpectoral) and total subpectoral. Here we present patient-reported outcomes from patient interviews designed to assess experience of prepectoral, dual-plane and revision (dual-plane to prepectoral) prosthetic breast reconstruction.

METHODS: Literature review and surgeon interview results were summarized and used to develop a semistructured patient interview guide. Women who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction and met eligibility criteria attended 1-hour telephone interviews to review their experience after reconstruction. Results were evaluated using thematic analysis.

RESULTS: Three surgeons were interviewed and stated that aesthetic, pain, and mobility outcomes were superior following prepectoral versus dual-plane placement. Twenty patients (10 prepectoral; 4 dual-plane; 6 revision) were interviewed.

Through Week 1 after surgery, commonly reported outcomes included:

  • positive: less pain than expected (prepectoral, 7/10 [70%]; dual-plane, 2/4 [50%]; revision, 1/6 [17%]); breast appearance (prepectoral, 1/10 [10%]; dual-plane, 2/4 [50%]; revision, 5/6 [83%]).
  • negative: restrictions/inability to perform daily tasks (prepectoral, 5/10 [50%]; dual-plane, 4/4 [100%]; revision, 1/6 [17%]) and pain in breast/chest area (prepectoral, 4/10 [40%]; dual-plane, 3/4 [75%]; revision, 2/6 [33%]).
Through Month 3, the most commonly reported:

  • positive outcomes were ability to perform daily tasks/exercise (prepectoral, 7/10 [70%]; dual-plane, 1/4 [25%], revision, 2/6 [33%]); breast appearance (prepectoral, 3/10 [30%]; dual-plane, 3/4 [75%]; revision, 6/6 [100%]).
  • negative outcome was pain in breast/chest area (prepectoral, 1/10 [10%]; dual-plane, 2/4 [50%]; revision, 2/6 [33%]).
CONCLUSIONS: These qualitative interviews identified pain, ability to perform tasks, and breast appearance as key outcomes after implant-based breast reconstruction. Patient reported-outcomes were consistent with those reported by surgeons. Large-scale survey studies are needed to quantify the differences between surgical techniques in these key outcomes.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2019-05, ISPOR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA

Value in Health, Volume 22, Issue S1 (2019 May)

Code

PSU4

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Patient-Centered Research

Topic Subcategory

Clinician Reported Outcomes, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes

Disease

Surgery

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×