RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Oberg-Manske-Tonkin (OMT) classification established excellent reliability scores in several validation studies. However, one study published in 2022 found much lower scores in a subanalysis of their sample when very simple anomalies were excluded. Our study assessed the reliability of the OMT among physicians with a different background, all involved in congenital hand anomaly care, and analyzed codes with less agreement. Time required for classification was recorded to give an indication on its usability. METHODS: One hundred digital cases were classified twice with a minimal 1-month time interval, with the use of the 2020 version of the OMT. Two pediatric hand surgeons, 2 rehabilitation specialists, and 2 plastic surgery residents participated in this reliability analysis. The use of multiple codes was allowed. The intra- and interrater reliability was assessed for all 15 possible rater couples by calculating percentage of agreement. Cohen's kappa was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval. For the analysis of individual codes with less agreement, we calculated positive agreement with the use of a summed agreement table. Time necessary for classification was documented in seconds. RESULTS: The inter- and intrarater agreement was moderate with a mean Cohen's kappa of 0.45 and 0.60 retrospectively. On average, 39 seconds per case were necessary for the first and 24 seconds for the second rating. Background did not influence the level of agreement. Lowest agreement levels (ie, lowest positive agreement) were observed with all the arthrogryposis multiplex congenita subgroups, the "other" subgroups of isolated congenital contractures, syndromic syndactyly, and synpolydactyly. Codes commonly used interchangeably were symbrachydactyly and transverse deficiency and the distinction between these anomalies of only the hand or the entire upper limb; symbrachydactyly and brachydactyly; and camptodactyly and distal arthrogryposis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a moderate reliability, emphasizing the complexity of this heterogeneous patient population. Despite its imperfections, the OMT remains the best and most versatile classification tool at hand. Its main purpose may lie in contributing to a universal language for research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Suggested advantages are that ADMs facilitate one-stage IBBR and improve aesthetic outcomes. We compared immediate one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR with two-stage IBBR (current standard of care). Our previously reported secondary endpoint showed that one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR was associated with significantly more adverse outcomes. Here, we present the primary endpoint results aiming to assess whether one-stage IBBR with ADM provides higher patient-reported quality of life (QOL) compared with two-stage IBBR. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (BRIOS study) was done in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. We recruited women aged older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a genetic predisposition who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. Randomisation was stratified by centre and indication for surgery (oncological or prophylactic) in blocks of ten participants. The primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL, as measured with the BREAST-Q (ie, health-related QOL scales and satisfaction scales), in the modified intention-to-treat population. The study follow-up is complete. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR5446. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, we enrolled 142 women, of whom 69 were randomly assigned to receive one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR and 73 to receive two-stage IBBR. After exclusions, the modified intention-to-treat population comprised 60 patients in the one-stage group and 61 patients in the two-stage group. Of these, 48 women (mean follow-up 17·0 months [SD 7·8]) in the one-stage group and 44 women (17·2 months [SD 6·7]) in the two-stage group completed the BREAST-Q at least 1 year after implant placement. We found no significant differences in postoperative patient-reported QOL domains, including physical wellbeing (one-stage mean 78·0 [SD 14·1] vs two-stage 79·3 [12·2], p=0·60), psychosocial wellbeing (72·6 [17·3] vs 72·8 [19·6], p=0·95), and sexual wellbeing (58·0 [17·0] vs 57·1 [19·5], p=0·82), or in the patient-reported satisfaction domains: satisfaction with breasts (63·4 [15·8] vs 60·3 [15·4], p=0·35) and satisfaction with outcome (72·8 [19·1] vs 67·8 [16·3], p=0·19). INTERPRETATION: Taken together with our previously published findings, one-stage IBBR with ADM does not yield superior results in terms of patient-reported QOL compared with two-stage IBBR. Risks for adverse outcomes were significantly higher in the one-stage ADM group. Use of ADM for one-stage IBBM should be considered on a case-by-case basis. FUNDING: Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.