Using a Digital Implant Catalog Improves Data Quality and Reduces Administrative Burden in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: Correct registration of implant characteristics is essential to monitor implant safety within implant registries. Currently, in the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR), these characteristics are being registered manually by plastic surgeons, resulting in administrative burden and potentially incorrect data entry. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the accuracy of manually registered implant data, possible consequences of incorrect data, and the potential of a Digital Implant Catalog (DIC) on increasing data quality and reducing the administrative burden. METHODS: Manually entered implant characteristics (fill, shape, coating, texture) of newly inserted breast implants in the DBIR, from 2015 to 2019, were compared with the corresponding implant characteristics in the DIC. Reference numbers were employed to match characteristics between the 2 databases. The DIC was based on manufacturers' product catalogs and set as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 57,361 DBIR records could be matched with the DIC. Accuracy of implant characteristics varied from 70.6% to 98.0%, depending on the implant characteristic. The largest discrepancy was observed for "texture" and the smallest for "coating." All manually registered implant characteristics resulted in different conclusions about implant performance compared with the DIC (P < 0.01). Implementation of the DIC reduced the administrative burden from 14 to 7 variables (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a DIC increases data quality in the DBIR and reduces the administrative burden. However, correct registration of reference numbers in the registry by plastic surgeons remains key for adequate matching. Furthermore, all implant manufacturers should be involved, and regular updates of the DIC are required.

Ensuring access to post-cancer breast reconstructions: COVID-19 lessons from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has impacted breast implant surgery for oncological and non-oncological patients worldwide. This population-based study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to reconstructive and cosmetic breast implant surgery in the Netherlands using real-world data to describe trends, and to identify lessons to prevent future capacity problems within (inter)national healthcare. METHODS: This longitudinal study included patients undergoing breast implant surgery from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. For 2020, the first COVID-19 wave, intermediate period, and second wave were defined. We compared data from during the pandemic to a pre-pandemic (2019) reference year, assessing differences in the number of registered breast implants, and patient and surgery-related characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 34133 breast implants (17459 patients) were included. Compared to 2019, fewer implants were registered for post-cancer (n=484; -14.7%), cosmetic (n=480; -3.6%), and gender-affirming indications (n=104; -38.0%) during 2020. Fewer implants were registered in academic (n=196; -22.0%) and regional hospitals (n=1591; -16.5%), but more in private clinics (n=725; +10.1%). After the first wave, up to twice as many implants were registered in private clinics compared to 2019. No differences were found in characteristics of patients undergoing surgery in 2020 versus 2019. CONCLUSION: Hospital-based reconstructive and gender-affirming surgery were heavily impacted during the pandemic, while private-clinic-based cosmetic surgery quickly recovered. These outcomes are useful to fuel discussions about how healthcare could be reorganized in times of capacity problems. We suggest exploring options to deploy private clinics for ambulatory surgery aiming to keep hospital capacity available for acutely ill patients.

Risk factors for unplanned reoperation during the expansion phase in two-stage breast reconstruction in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: The majority of postmastectomy breast reconstructions (PMBRs) are currently performed in two stages using a tissue expander (TE). However, complications during the expansion phase occur regularly, leading to unplanned reoperations and/or reconstruction failure. This study aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned reoperation after TE placement, assessed the time until unplanned and planned reoperation, and investigated indications for unplanned reoperation. METHODS: Patient and surgery-related characteristics of patients who underwent two-stage PMBR between 2017 and 2021 were collected from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR). Unplanned reoperation was defined as TE explantation followed by either no replacement or replacement with the same or a different TE. Co-variate adjusted characteristics associated with unplanned reoperation were determined using backward stepwise selection and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 2529 patients (mean age, 50.2 years) were included. Unplanned reoperation occurred in 19.4 percent of all registered TEs (n=3190). Independent factors associated with unplanned reoperation were BMI≥25 kg/m 2 (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]=1.63;99% Confidence Interval [99%CI]=1.20-2.57 for BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2, aOR=2.57;99%CI=1.74-3.78 for BMI≥30 kg/m 2), low institutional volume (aOR=1.51;99%CI=1.06-2.18), no drains (aOR=2.06;99%CI=1.15-3.60), subcutaneous TE placement (aOR=5.71;99%CI=3.59-9.10), and partial pectoralis major muscle coverage (aOR=1.35;99%CI=1.02-1.79). Age<40 years (aOR=0.49;99%CI=0.32-0.74) and delayed PMBR (aOR=0.35;99%CI=0.19-0.60) reduced the risk of unplanned reoperation. Median time until reoperation was 97 days for unplanned and 213 days for planned reoperation. Deep wound infections were most often registered as indication for unplanned reoperation (34.4 percent). CONCLUSION: This study identified several risk factors for unplanned reoperation which may be used to reduce complications in expander-based PMBR.