Quality of life, pain of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with a discussion on cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (PIBR) has regained popularity, despite decades-long preference for subpectoral implant placement. This paper aims to compare patient-reported outcomes (PRO) between prepectoral and subpectoral approaches to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The primary PRO was with the BREAST-Q, and postoperative pain scores, while the secondary outcomes were complication rates. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed library was performed. All studies on patients undergoing IBBR after mastectomy that compared prepectoral to subpectoral placement and PROM or postoperative pain were included. RESULTS: A total of 3789 unique studies of which 7 publications with 216 and 332 patients who received prepectoral and subpectoral implants, respectively, were included for meta-analysis. Patients with prepectoral implant placement had significantly higher satisfaction with the outcome (p = 0.03) and psychosocial well-being (p = 0.03) module scores. The pain was lower in patients with prepectoral implants on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and day 7 (p<0.01). The subgroup analysis of prepectoral breast implants showed that complete acellular dermal matrix coverage had lower rates of wound dehiscence (p<0.0001), but there were no significant differences in complications between one-stage and two-stage procedures. CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with prepectoral implants reported higher BREAST-Q scores and lower postoperative pain and lower complications rates than patients with subpectoral implants. In appropriately selected patients, prepectoral implant placement with ADM coverage, be it the primary placement of an implant or placement of a tissue expander before definitive implant placement, should be the modality of choice in patients who choose IBBR. Further research should focus on patient selection, strategies to reduce cost and cost-benefit analysis of PIBR.

The Impact of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) on the Health and Social Needs of Sex Workers in Singapore.

We evaluated the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the sex work industry and assessed how it has impacted the health and social conditions of sex workers in Singapore. We conducted a sequential exploratory mixed methods study amidst the COVID-19 pandemic from April to October 2020, including in-depth interviews with 24 stakeholders from the sex work industry and surveyor-administered structured surveys with 171 sex workers. COVID-19 had a substantial impact on sex workers' income. The illegality of sex work, stigma, and the lack of work documentation were cited as exclusionary factors for access to alternative jobs or government relief. Sex workers had experienced an increase in food insecurity (57.3%), housing insecurity (32.8%), and sexual compromise (8.2%), as well as a decrease in access to medical services (16.4%). Being transgender female was positively associated with increased food insecurity (aPR = 1.23, 95% CI [1.08, 1.41]), housing insecurity (aPR = 1.28, 95% CI [1.03, 1.60]), and decreased access to medical services (aPR = 1.74, 95% CI [1.23, 2.46]); being a venue-based sex worker was positively associated with increased food insecurity (aPR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.00, 2.13]), and being a non-Singaporean citizen or permanent resident was positively associated with increased housing insecurity (aPR = 2.59, 95% CI [1.73, 3.85]). Our findings suggest that COVID-19 has led to a loss of income for sex workers, greater food and housing insecurity, increased sexual compromise, and reduced access to medical services for sex workers. A lack of access to government relief among sex workers exacerbated such conditions. Efforts to address such population health inequities should be implemented.