Understanding decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery as an alternative to a mastectomy in early breast cancer: UK ANTHEM qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery may allow women with early breast cancer to avoid a mastectomy, but many women undergo more extensive surgery, even when breast-conserving options are offered. The aim of the ANTHEM qualitative study was to explore factors influencing women's surgical decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of women who had received either oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction to explore their rationale for procedure choice. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Trial registration number: ISRCTN18238549. RESULTS: A total of 27 women from 12 centres were interviewed. Out of these, 12 had chosen oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and 15 had chosen a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. Overwhelmingly, women's decisions were guided by their surgical teams. Decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery was influenced by three key inter-related factors: perceptions of oncological safety; the importance of maintaining/restoring femininity and body image; and practical issues. Oncological safety was paramount. Women who reported feeling reassured that oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery was oncologically safe were happy to choose this option. Those who were not reassured were more likely to opt for a mastectomy, as a perceived 'safer' option. Most women wished to maintain/restore femininity, with the offer of immediate breast reconstruction essential to make a mastectomy an acceptable option. Practical issues such as the perceived magnitude of the surgery were a lesser concern. CONCLUSION: Decision-making is complex and heavily influenced by the surgical team. High-quality, accurate information about surgical options, including appropriate reassurance about the short- and long-term oncological safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery is vital if women are to make fully informed decisions.

Current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in the UK: results of the ANTHEM national practice questionnaire.

PURPOSE: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) may be a better option than mastectomy ± immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for women with breast cancer but studies directly comparing the techniques are lacking. We surveyed UK breast units to determine the current practice of OPBCS to inform the design of a future comparative study. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed to explore the current practice of OPBCS. This included the local availability of volume displacement and/or replacement techniques; number of cases performed; contraindications and approach to contralateral symmetrisation. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and overall provision of care examined. RESULTS: 58 UK centres completed the survey, including 43 (74%) stand-alone breast and 15 (26%) combined breast/plastics units. Over 40% of units (n = 24) treated more than 500 cancers/year. Most units offered volume displacement techniques (TMs) (97%). Over two-thirds (n = 39. 67%) of units offered local perforator flaps (LPF). Approximately a half of units (10/19) not performing LPF were planning to introduce them in the next 12-24 months. A third (n = 19, 33%) of units routinely performed simultaneous contralateral symmetrisation mostly with two-surgeon operating. There were limited oncological restrictions to OPBCS with no contraindications for multifocal cancers in most centres; 65% of units (36/55) offered OPBCS for multicentric disease. Extensive DCIS was a contraindication in a minority of units. CONCLUSIONS: OPBCS is widely available in the UK but contraindications and approaches to contralateral symmetrisation were variable. Work is now needed to prospectively evaluate the outcomes of OPBCS vs mastectomy ± IBR to support informed decision-making.

A comparative study between deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction and DIEP flap breast reconstruction coupled with vascularized lymph node transfer: Improving the quality of life of patients with breast cancer related lymphedema without affecting donor site outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite simultaneous microvascular breast reconstruction (MBR) and vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) gaining wide popularity as a potential treatment for breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL), there is a lack of evidence supporting the procedure. There are few reports in the literature, and no study has compared simple deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) to simultaneous DIEP flap and VLNT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our series of DIEP flaps was conducted. Patients presenting with BCRL who had delayed MBR and simultaneous VLNT were selected. Thirty-two patients were included and compared with a control group of delayed MBR with DIEP flap alone. Clinical evaluation, circumference reduction rate, and LYMQOL questionnaire were used to compare preoperative and postoperative findings in the study group. A digital version of BREAST Q questionnaire was administered to all patients. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were enrolled in the study group, with a mean follow-up of 42.5 ± 25.7 months and mean age of 54.1 ± 7.8 years. The mean circumference reduction rate was 46.1 ± 52.3, 39 ± 42.3, 47.5 ± 53.5, 39.2 ± 52.4, 33.6 ± 50.1 at the deltoid insertion, above the elbow, below the elbow, at the mid-forearm and wrist respectively. Postoperative LYMQOL scores significantly improved (function 1.21, appearance 1.15, symptoms 1.34, mood 1.33, overall QOLscore 8.6) from preoperative baseline (p < .001). There was no significant difference in term of outcomes and complications rate of the donor site between the study and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous DIEPandVLNT improves the HRQOL of patients with lymphedema. Coupling VLNT with abdominal flap does not increase the morbidity of donor site.

The Impact of Radiotherapy on Patient-reported Outcomes of Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction With and Without Mesh.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of PMRT on PROs of IBBR performed with and without mesh. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PMRT is increasingly given to improve breast cancer outcomes but can adversely impact complications after IBBR.Little; however, is known about the impact of PMRT on the PROs of IBBR, especially when mesh is used. METHODS: The implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation prospective cohort study recruited consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR from 81 UK breast and plastic surgical units. Demographic, operative, oncological, and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients consented to receive validated PRO questionnaires at 18-months. The association between IBBR, PMRT, and PROs were investigated using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically-relevant confounders and including a random-effect to account for potential clustering by center. RESULTS: A total of 1163 women consented to receive 18-month questionnaires of whom 730 (63%) completed it. Patients undergoing PMRT (214 patients) reported worse PROs in 3 BREAST-Q domains: satisfaction with breasts [-6.27 points, P = 0.008, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-10.91, -1.63)], satisfaction with outcome [-7.53 points, P = 0.002, CI (-12.20, -2.85)] and physical well-being [-6.55 points, P < 0.001, CI (-9.43, -3.67)]. Overall satisfaction was worse in the PMRT group [OR 0.497, P = 0.002, CI (0.32, 0.77)]. These effects were not ameliorated by mesh use. CONCLUSIONS: PMRT may adversely affect PROs after IBBR irrespective of whether mesh is used. These findings should be discussed with all patients considering IBBR and when indications for PMRT are borderline to enable informed decision-making regarding oncological and reconstructive treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN37664281.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection). INTERPRETATION: Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July-December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. RESULTS: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. CONCLUSIONS: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients.

Immediate nipple reconstruction in combination with implant reconstruction using dermal sling.

The inferior de-epithelialized dermal flap with implant is increasingly used for immediate breast reconstruction. We have adapted the technique to provide concurrent immediate nipple reconstruction by recruiting the triangle of skin above the excised nipple as a modified C-V flap. The safety and efficacy of this technique has been assessed in 15 patients, of which eight were bilateral and seven were unilateral cases. We suggest that this is a safe, reliable, and original technique for immediate nipple reconstruction in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with an inferior dermal sling and implant.

DIEP backlog: Mission impossible?

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused global challenges, including the restriction of surgical options for women with breast cancer. Autologous reconstruction availability has still not returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. This study aimed to collect data about waiting lists for autologous breast reconstruction and is the first of its kind. A total of 31 units were approached and asked to complete a study specific questionnaire. In total, there are at least 2255 patients on a waiting list, which equates to a 2-year and 5-month backlog at the current level of provision, without the inclusion of new referrals. Alarmingly, 40 women reportedly developed breast cancer whilst on the waiting list. The impact of COVID-19 has been significant, revealing national inequity in reconstruction provision and long waiting lists. Recommendations include increasing theatre capacity, optimising plastic surgeons' job plans to prevent waiting lists from growing as well as training more surgeons in autologous reconstruction.

UK Guidelines for Lipomodelling of the Breast on behalf of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery and Association of Breast Surgery Expert Advisory Group.

Lipomodelling has become increasingly popular for reconstructive, aesthetic and therapeutic indications. The guidelines summarise available evidence for indications, training, technique, audit and outcomes in lipomodelling and also highlight areas for further research.

Protocol for a mixed-method study to inform the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale multicentre study comparing the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic breast conservation as an alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction in women unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (the ANTHEM Feasibility Study).

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 40% of the 55 000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy because they are considered unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (BCS) due to tumour size or multiple tumour foci. Mastectomy can significantly impact women's quality of life, and only one in four women currently undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).Level 2 oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) combines removing the cancer with a range of plastic surgical volume replacement (eg, local perforator flaps) and volume displacement techniques (eg, therapeutic mammaplasty) that can extend the role of BCS and may allow some women not suitable for standard BCS to avoid mastectomy. High-quality research to determine whether OPBCS offers a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy±IBR is currently lacking. Preliminary work is needed to ensure a future large-scale study is feasible and well designed and addresses questions important to patients and the National Health Service. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mixed methods will be used to inform feasibility and design of a future large-scale study comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of OPBCS and mastectomy±IBR. It will have four parts: (1) a National Practice Questionnaire to determine current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast and reconstructive surgery in the UK; (2) a pilot multicentre prospective cohort study to explore the proportion of patients choosing OPBCS versus mastectomy, the proportion in OPBCS is successful and clinical and patient-reported outcomes of different techniques at 3 and 12 months postsurgery; (3) a qualitative interview study to explore patients' attitudes to different procedures, rationale for decision-making and perceptions of outcomes; and (4) design of the future study.All centres offering OPBCS and mastectomy in the UK will be invited to participate. Recruitment is planned to commence winter 2020 and continue for 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has ethical approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 National Research Ethics Service (REC Ref 20/WA/0225). Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will work with patients to develop lay summaries and share these through patient groups and breast cancer charities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18238549.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10081873.

International development and implementation of a core measurement set for research and audit studies in implant-based breast reconstruction: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Outcome reporting in research studies of breast reconstruction is inconsistent and lacks standardisation. The results of individual studies therefore cannot be meaningfully compared or combined limiting their value. A core outcome set (COS) has been developed to address these issues and identified 11 key outcomes to be measured and reported in all future research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery (RBS). A COS represents what key outcomes should be measured. The next step is to determine how and when this should be done. The aim of this study is to develop a core measurement set (CMS) for use in research and audit studies in implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative (COMET) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group for the selection of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for relevant outcome domains included in the RBS COS. This will involve three phases with strategies to promote implementation as a final additional phase. The phases are (1) conceptual considerations in which the target population, procedures and settings are defined; (2) systematic reviews to identify existing clinical, patient-reported and cosmetic OMIs and, if appropriate, assess their quality using COSMIN methodology; (3) a modified Delphi process including sequential Delphi surveys involving approximately 100 healthcare professionals and a face to face consensus meeting to agree and ratify which outcome definitions and OMIs should be used and standardised time points for assessment; (4) strategies to promote dissemination and adoption of the CMS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by University of Bristol Faculty Research Ethics Committee FREC ID 60221. Dissemination strategies will include scientific meeting presentations and peer-reviewed journal publications. Implementation activities will include engagement with journal editors and funders to promote uptake and use of the CMS.

Perforated caecal carcinoma masquerading as lower limb necrotising fasciitis: lessons learnt.

A 69-year-old man was admitted with non-resolving right leg cellulitis. Subsequent skin changes over the calf and discharging pus suggested necrotising fasciitis. After several wound debridements of the leg and imaging, the patient was found to have an iliopsoas abscess due to a metastatic perforated caecal tumour extending along the medial thigh to the calf. No micro-organisms indicative of typical necrotising fasciitis were isolated from the wound. The patient had an ileocaecal resection, and his leg was reconstructed with a split thickness skin graft. He continues to do well postoperatively. This case highlights key lessons when dealing with an unusual presentation leading to challenges in diagnosis such as: (1) the need for good interspecialty liaison, (2) prompt senior review and plan, and (3) 'thinking outside the box' when faced with a diagnostic challenge.

Adherence to best practice consensus guidelines for implant-based breast reconstruction: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire survey.

INTRODUCTION: The 2008 National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit demonstrated marked variation in the practice and outcomes of breast reconstruction in the UK. To standardise practice and improve outcomes for patients, the British professional associations developed best-practice guidelines with specific guidance for newer mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. We explored the degree of uptake of best-practice guidelines within units performing implant-based reconstruction (IBBR) as the first phase of the implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) study. METHODS: A questionnaire developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Simple summary statistics were calculated for each survey item to assess compliance with current best-practice guidelines. RESULTS: 81 units from 79 NHS Trusts completed the questionnaire. Marked variation was observed in adherence to guidelines, especially those relating to clinical governance and infection prevention strategies. Less than half (n = 28, 47%) of units obtained local clinical governance board approval prior to offering new mesh-based techniques and prospective audit of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of surgery was infrequent. Most units screened for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus prior to surgery but fewer than 1 in 3 screened for methicillin-sensitive strains. Laminar-flow theatres (recommended for IBBR) were not widely-available with less than 1 in 5 units having regular access. Peri-operative antibiotics were widely-used, but the type and duration were highly-variable. CONCLUSIONS: The iBRA national practice questionnaire has demonstrated variation in reported practice and adherence to IBBR guidelines. High-quality evidence is urgently required to inform best practice.

Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK. METHODS: A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined. RESULTS: 81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50-80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0-3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0-3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n = 62) and synthetic (n = 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The iBRA-NPQ has demonstrated marked variation in the provision and practice of IBBR in the UK. The prospective audit phase of the iBRA study will determine the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to IBBR and allow evidence-based best practice to be explored.

Detection of Perforators Using Smartphone Thermal Imaging.

Thermal imaging detects infrared radiation from an object, producing a thermogram that can be interpreted as a surrogate marker for cutaneous blood flow. To date, high-resolution cameras typically cost tens of thousands of dollars. The FLIR ONE is a smartphone-compatible miniature thermal imaging camera that currently retails at under $200. In a proof-of-concept study, patients and healthy volunteers were assessed with thermal imaging for (1) detecting and mapping perforators, (2) defining perforasomes, and (3) monitoring free flaps. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative thermograms can assist in the planning, execution, and monitoring of free flaps, and the FLIR ONE provides a low-cost adjunct that could be applied to other areas of burns and plastic surgery.

The iBRA-2 (immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy audit) study: protocol for a prospective national multicentre cohort study to evaluate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the delivery of adjuvant therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer requiring a mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay the delivery of adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term oncological outcomes. High-quality evidence, however, is lacking. iBRA-2 is a national prospective multicentre cohort study that aims to investigate the effect of IBR on the delivery of adjuvant therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Breast and plastic surgery centres in the UK performing mastectomy with or without (±) IBR will be invited to participate in the study through the trainee research collaborative network. All women undergoing mastectomy ±â€…IBR for breast cancer between 1 July and 31 December 2016 will be included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data will be collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ±â€…IBR will be compared to determine the impact that IBR has on the time of delivery of adjuvant therapy. Prospective data on 3000 patients from ∼50 centres are anticipated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for this study. This has been confirmed using the online Health Research Authority decision tool. This novel study will explore whether IBR impacts the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy. The study will provide valuable information to help patients and surgeons make more informed decisions about their surgical options. Dissemination of the study protocol will be via the Mammary Fold Academic and Research Collaborative (MFAC) and the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), the Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS). Participating units will have access to their own data and collective results will be presented at relevant surgical conferences and published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals.

The iBRA (implant breast reconstruction evaluation) study: protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial comparing new techniques of implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure in the UK. The introduction of techniques to augment the subpectoral pocket has revolutionised the procedure, but there is a lack of high-quality outcome data to describe the safety or effectiveness of these techniques. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way of comparing treatments, but surgical RCTs are challenging. The iBRA (implant breast reconstruction evaluation) study aims to determine the feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic RCT to examine the effectiveness of approaches to IBBR. METHODS/DESIGN: The iBRA study is a trainee-led research collaborative project with four phases:Phase 1 - a national practice questionnaire (NPQ) to survey current practicePhase 2 - a multi-centre prospective cohort study of patients undergoing IBBR to evaluate the clinical and patient-reported outcomesPhase 3- an IBBR-RCT acceptability survey and qualitative work to explore patients' and surgeons' views of proposed trial designs and candidate outcomes.Phase 4 - phases 1 to 3 will inform the design and conduct of the future RCT All centres offering IBBR will be encouraged to participate by the breast and plastic surgical professional associations (Association of Breast Surgery and British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons). Data collected will inform the feasibility of undertaking an RCT by defining current practice and exploring issues surrounding recruitment, selection of comparator arms, choice of primary outcome, sample size, selection criteria, trial conduct, methods of data collection and feasibility of using the trainee collaborative model to recruit patients and collect data. DISCUSSION: The preliminary work undertaken within the iBRA study will determine the feasibility, design and conduct of a definitive RCT in IBBR. It will work with the trainee collaborative to build capacity by creating an infrastructure of research-active breast and plastic surgeons which will facilitate future high-quality research that will ultimately improve outcomes for all women seeking reconstructive surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN37664281.

Are systemic antibiotics indicated in aesthetic breast surgery? A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The use of systemic prophylactic antibiotics to reduce surgical-site infection in aesthetic breast surgery remains controversial. The aim of this review is to weigh the available evidence with respect to reducing surgical-site infection. METHODS: Two literature searches were performed to analyze the available data for studies involving either reduction or augmentation mammaplasty and the results of different antibiotics regimens. Outcome measures included surgical-site infection and capsular contracture. RESULTS: A total of 2971 patients (5891 breasts) were included. A meta-analysis of surgical-site infection incidence after aesthetic breast surgery revealed a significant reduction in infections overall with antibiotic prophylaxis compared with controls (p=0.02). This was most significant with a single preoperative antibiotic dose (p=0.02). In cases of reduction mammaplasty, when antibiotics are administered as a single preoperative dose, the risk of developing surgical-site infection is halved. With augmentation mammaplasty, there was no effect on infection rates with any antibiotic regimen. Data concerning the incidence of capsular contracture were insufficient for meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For cases of reduction mammaplasty, the authors recommend a single intravenous perioperative dose of antibiotic with action against Staphylococcus species. For augmentation mammaplasty, there is no evidence to refute current guidelines, based on recommendations obtained from other forms of implant surgery. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.