Shelley Potter

Multicentre observational study of performance variation in provision and outcome of emergency appendicectomy

Identification of variation in practice is a key step towards standardization of service and determination of reliable quality markers. This study aimed to investigate variation in provision and outcome of emergency appendicectomy.

Reporting Clinical Outcomes of Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND Breast reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer requires accurate evaluation to inform evidence-based participatory decision making, but the standards of outcome reporting after breast reconstruction have not previously been considered. METHODS We used extensive searches to identify articles reporting surgical outcomes of breast reconstruction. We extracted data using published criteria for complication reporting modified to reflect reconstructive practice. Study designs included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to critically appraise all study designs. Other criteria used to assess the studies were selection and funding bias, statistical power calculations, and institutional review board approval. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the breadth and frequency of study outcomes, and χ² tests were used to compare the number of studies in each group reporting each of the published criteria. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Surgical complications following breast reconstruction in 42,146 women were evaluated in 134 studies. These included 11 (8.2%) randomized trials, 74 (55.2%) cohort studies, and 49 (36.6%) case series. Fifty-three percent of studies demonstrated a disparity between methods and results in the numbers of complications reported. Complications were defined by 87 (64.9%) studies and graded by 78 (58.2%). Details such as the duration of follow-up and risk factors for adverse outcomes were omitted from 47 (35.1%) and 58 (43.3%) studies, respectively. Overall, the studies defined fewer than 20% of the complications they reported, and the definitions were largely inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS The results of this systematic review suggest that outcome reporting in breast reconstruction is inconsistent and lacks methodological rigor. The development of a standardized core outcome set is recommended to improve outcome reporting in breast reconstruction.

Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery

Appropriate outcome selection is essential if research is to guide decision‐making and inform policy. Systematic reviews of the clinical, cosmetic and patient‐reported outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery, however, have demonstrated marked heterogeneity, and results from individual studies cannot be compared or combined. Use of a core outcome set may improve the situation. The BRAVO study developed a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery.

Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) may improve outcomes in implant‐based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The aim of this study was critically to appraise and evaluate the current evidence for ADM‐assisted IBBR.

Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study

BackgroundWell-designed randomised clinical trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence to inform decision-making and should be the default option for evaluating surgical procedures. Such trials can be challenging, and surgeons’ preferences may influence whether trials are initiated and successfully conducted and their results accepted. Preferences are particularly problematic when surgeons’ views play a key role in procedure selection and patient eligibility. The bases of such preferences have rarely been explored. Our aim in this qualitative study was to investigate surgeons’ preferences regarding the feasibility of surgical RCTs and their understanding of study design issues using breast reconstruction surgery as a case study.MethodsSemistructured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 35 professionals practicing at 15 centres across the United Kingdom. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved.ResultsSurgeons often struggle with the concept of equipoise. We found that if surgeons did not feel ‘in equipoise’, they did not accept randomisation as a method of treatment allocation. The underlying reasons for limited equipoise were limited appreciation of the methodological weaknesses of data derived from nonrandomised studies and little understanding of pragmatic trial design. Their belief in the value of RCTs for generating high-quality data to change or inform practice was not widely held.ConclusionThere is a need to help surgeons understand evidence, equipoise and bias. Current National Institute of Health Research/Medical Research Council investment into education and infrastructure for RCTs, combined with strong leadership, may begin to address these issues or more specific interventions may be required.

Exploring inequalities in access to care and the provision of choice to women seeking breast reconstruction surgery: a qualitative study.

Background:Breast reconstruction (BR) may improve psychosocial and cosmetic outcomes after mastectomy for breast cancer but currently, few women opt for surgery. Reasons for this are unclear. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore access to care and the provision of procedure choice to women seeking reconstructive surgery.Methods:Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patients who had undergone BR and professionals providing specialist care explored participants’ experiences of information provision before BR. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the constant comparative technique of grounded theory. Sampling, data collection and analysis were performed concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved.Results:Both patients and professionals expressed concerns about the provision of adequate procedure choice and access to care. Lack of information and/or time, involvement in decision making and issues relating to the evolution and organisation of reconstructive services, emerged as potential explanations for the inequalities seen. Interventions to improve cross-speciality collaboration were proposed to address these issues.Conclusion:Inequalities in the provision of choice in BR exist, which may be explained by a lack of integration between surgical specialities. Pathway restructuring, service reorganisation and standardisation of training may enhance cross-speciality collaboration and improve the patient experience.

Early complications and implant loss in implant-based breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix (Tecnoss Protexa®): a comparative study.

INTRODUCTION Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) may improve outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction, but recent evidence suggests complication rates may be higher when ADM is used. We retrospectively compared early complications and implant loss in implant-based breast reconstruction (BR) with and without ADM to evaluate the safety of the procedure in our centre. METHODS Case-notes of consecutive women undergoing implant-based BR from May 2011 to November 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Data were extracted using a standardised pro-forma and the rate of early complications, major complications and implant loss compared between procedure groups. RESULTS Forty-six implant-based reconstructions were performed for malignancy (n = 31, 67.4%) or prophylaxis (n = 15, 32.6%) in 31 women over the 18-month study period. ADM (Tecnoss Protexa(®), Tecnoss S.r.l.) was used in 31 (67.4%) cases. There were no differences in patient age, BMI, co-morbidities, smoking or chemotherapy between groups, but patients receiving ADM were more likely to have received radiotherapy prior to their reconstruction (n = 6, 30% vs. n = 0, 0%, p = 0.043). The overall rate of early complications was 26.1% (n = 12) but there was no significant difference between procedure groups (standard-n = 4, 27.7% vs. ADM-n = 8, 25.8%; p = 0.950). There were 2 (4.3%) major complications none of which were associated with ADM use (standard-n = 2, 13.3% vs. ADM-n = 0, 0.0%; p = 0.038). There were 6 (13.0%) implant losses of which 4 were in the ADM group (standard-n = 2, 13.3% vs. ADM-n = 4, 12.9%; p = 0.968). All of these were associated with pre-reconstruction radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS ADM-assisted implant-based reconstruction with Tecnoss Protexa(®) is safe and may improve outcomes for women by facilitating a single-stage procedure. Robust prospective evaluation is now needed to definitively evaluate the role of ADM in implant-based BR.

Systematic review of surgical innovation reporting in laparoendoscopic colonic polyp resection

The IDEAL framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long‐term study) proposes a staged assessment of surgical innovation, but whether it can be used in practice is uncertain. This study aimed to review the reporting of a surgical innovation according to the IDEAL framework.

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

BackgroundImplant-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/designThe 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 RCTAll 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.DiscussionThe 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 registrationISRCTN37664281

The TeaM (Therapeutic Mammaplasty) study: Protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to evaluate the practice and outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty

Highlights • Multicentre prospective study involving breast and plastic surgical units across the UK.• Will produce valuable data regarding the practice and outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty.• Will inform decision-making and lead to future definitive study.• Will strengthen the collaborative network to facilitate the delivery of future projects.• Will increase awareness of the techniques among trainees such that participation is educational.