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.

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.

Use of Omniflow® II in Infected Vascular Grafts with Femoral Anastomotic Dehiscence.

BACKGROUND: Vascular graft infection with anastomotic dehiscence requires immediate surgical intervention to preserve life and limb. We present our experience of using the Omniflow® II biosynthetic vascular prosthesis (LeMaitre Vascular) in the emergency repair of vascular graft dehiscence at the femoral anastomosis. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients presenting with femoral anastomotic dehiscence in a single centre was conducted. All patients were revascularized using an in situ Omniflow II graft. Patient demographics, affected graft type, microbiology, and antibiotic regimes were documented. Primary outcome measures were limb salvage, patency rates, and mortality. RESULTS: Five patients presented with acute femoral false aneurysm and four of five with significant hemorrhage. Infected grafts included one aortobifemoral, two femoral crossover, one axillobifemoral, and one infrainguinal reversed vein graft. All were revascularized with an in situ Omniflow II graft following the excision of the infected graft material. The median followup was 50 months. Limb salvage was achieved in 8 of 9 threatened limbs, and none required further intervention for re-infection. One graft occluded at 5 months. Two of five patients died during followup (one at 12 months, one at 50 months). CONCLUSIONS: Omniflow II provides a useful "off-the-shelf" conduit for the urgent revascularization of infected femoral dehiscence.