Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient-Report Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life in TiLOOP® Bra-Assisted or Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Alone

  • Original Article
  • Breast
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBR) using alternatives to acellular dermal matrixes are increasing. Data on complications are limited, and information concerning health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) following the use of these synthetic meshes do not exist.

Methods

Between January 2006 and January 2013, patients undergoing immediate or delayed-immediate IBBR with or without titanium covered polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP® Bra) were investigated. HR-QoL was assessed using the validated self-reporting BREAST-Q questionnaire. Patient demographics and complications were evaluated retrospectively. Stepwise regression backward elimination analysis was performed to identify influential factors on each BREAST-Q domain.

Results

Of the 90 women, 42 had IBBR alone and 48 in combination with TiLOOP® Bra. The mean follow-up was 18 months in the TiLOOP® Bra and 17.5 months in the implant alone group (p = 0.827). The overall complication rate was 21.1 %, with 14.6 % in the TiLOOP® Bra and in 28.6 % in the implant alone group (p = 0.105). Capsular contraction rate was 4.4 % in the TiLOOP® Bra and 16.7 % in the implant alone group (p = 0.052). The analysis of the HR-QoL showed no significant differences between the groups. Surgeries prior to IBBR had a positive influence on HR-QoL. TiLOOP® Bra was associated with a negative effect on “satisfaction with breast” (β = −5.72; p < 0.001), as it was no longer observed for “satisfaction with outcome” and other domains.

Conclusion

Using TiLOOP® Bra showed similar complication and satisfaction rates but a negative effect on “satisfaction with breast.” TiLOOP® Bra might be used in selected patients, but is not meant to overcome all restrictions of IBBR.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bear HD et al (2007) Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol 18:1927–1934

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dieterich M, Gerber B (2011) Patient selection and technical considerations in nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 3:79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. American Society of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics, Reconstructive Breast Surgery (2013). Data obtained from the ASPS website statistics section: http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Documents/news-resources/statistics/2013-statistics/cosmetic-procedures-national-trends-2013.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2014

  4. Dieterich M, Faridi A (2013) Biological matrices and synthetic meshes used in implant-based breast reconstruction—a review of products available in Germany. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 73:1100–1106

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dieterich M, Dieterich H, Timme S, Reimer T, Gerber B, Stubert J (2012) Using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP((R)) Bra) for implant-based breast reconstruction: case report and histological analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:273–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Becker H, Lind JG II (2013) The use of synthetic mesh in reconstructive, revision, and cosmetic breast surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 37:914–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dieterich M, Paepke S, Zwiefel K et al (2013) Implant-based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLOOP Bra): a multicenter study of 231 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:8e–19e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganz PA (2008) Psychological and social aspects of breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 22:642–646, 650 (discussion 650, 653)

  9. Helms RL, O’Hea EL, Corso M (2008) Body image issues in women with breast cancer. Psychol Health Med 13:313–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dieterich M, Reimer T, Dieterich H, Stubert J, Gerber B (2012) A short-term follow-up of implant based breast reconstruction using a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh (TiLoop((R)) Bra). Eur J Surg Oncol 38:1225–1230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dieterich M, Dieterich H, Nestle-Krämling C, Gerber B (2009) Certification of breast surgeons in Germany—AWO-gyn curriculum in an international comparison. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 69:987–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20:250–278 (quiz 279-280)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Scheidbach H, Tannapfel A, Schmidt U, Lippert H, Kockerling F (2004) Influence of titanium coating on the biocompatibility of a heavyweight polypropylene mesh. An animal experimental model. Eur Surg Res 36:313–317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:345–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Breuing KH, Warren SM (2005) Immediate bilateral breast reconstruction with implants and inferolateral AlloDerm slings. Ann Plast Surg 55:232–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Salzberg CA (2006) Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg 57:1–5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Breuing KH, Colwell AS (2007) Inferolateral AlloDerm hammock for implant coverage in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 59:250–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG (2008) Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 32:418–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nahabedian MY (2009) AlloDerm performance in the setting of prosthetic breast surgery, infection, and irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:1743–1753

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Namnoum JD (2009) Expander/implant reconstruction with AlloDerm: recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:387–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Glasberg SB, Light D (2012) AlloDerm and Strattice in breast reconstruction: a comparison and techniques for optimizing outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:1223–1233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Losken A (2009) Early results using sterilized acellular human dermis (Neoform) in post-mastectomy tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1654–1658

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cordeiro PG, Snell L, Heerdt A, McCarthy C (2012) Immediate tissue expander/implast breast reconstruction after salvage mastectomy for cancer recurrence following lumpectomy/irradiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:341–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kronowitz SJ (2012) Current status of implant-based breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:513e–523e

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Colwell AS, Tessler O, Lin AM et al (2014) Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: predictors of complications, reconstruction outcomes, and 5-year trends. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:496–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rinker B, Thornton BP (2014) Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction in patients with macromastia using the passot breast reduction pattern. Ann Plast Surg 72(Suppl 2):S158–S164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sbitany H, Serletti JM (2011) Acellular dermis-assisted prosthetic breast reconstruction: a systematic and critical review of efficacy and associated morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:1162–1169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hester TR Jr, Ghazi BH, Moyer HR, Nahai FR, Wilton M, Stokes L (2012) Use of dermal matrix to prevent capsular contracture in aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:126S–136S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmitz M, Bertram M, Kneser U, Keller AK, Horch RE (2013) Experimental total wrapping of breast implants with acellular dermal matrix: a preventive tool against capsular contracture in breast surgery? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:1382–1389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stump A, Holton LH 3rd, Connor J, Harper JR, Slezak S, Silverman RP (2009) The use of acellular dermal matrix to prevent capsule formation around implants in a primate model. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:82–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Komorowska-Timek E, Oberg KC, Timek TA, Gridley DS, Miles DA (2009) The effect of AlloDerm envelopes on periprosthetic capsule formation with and without radiation. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:807–816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Craft RO, Rebecca AM, Flahive C, Casey WJ 3rd, Dueck A, Harold KL (2011) Does size matter? Technical considerations of a regenerative tissue matrix for use in reconstructive surgery. Can J Plast Surg 19:51–52

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Clemons JL, Myers DL, Aguilar VC, Arya LA (2003) Vaginal paravaginal repair with an AlloDerm graft. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1612–1618 (discussion 1618–1619)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Butler CE, Langstein HN, Kronowitz SJ (2005) Pelvic, abdominal, and chest wall reconstruction with AlloDerm in patients at increased risk for mesh-related complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:1263–1275 (discussion 1276–1267)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Choe JM, Kothandapani R, James L, Bowling D (2001) Autologous, cadaveric, and synthetic materials used in sling surgery: comparative biomechanical analysis. Urology 58:482–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim JY, Davila AA, Persing S et al (2012) A meta-analysis of human acellular dermis and submuscular tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:28–41

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang HY, Ali RS, Chen SC, Chao TC, Cheng MH (2008) One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implant following skin-sparing mastectomy in Asian patients. Ann Plast Surg 60:362–366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stokes RB (2004) Breast augmentation in thin women: patient satisfaction with saline-filled implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:153–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T et al (2010) Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1585–1595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Albornoz CR, Matros E, McCarthy CM et al (2014) Implant breast reconstruction and radiation: a multicenter analysis of long-term health-related quality of life and satisfaction. Ann Surg Oncol 21:2159–2164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is in no way related to regulatory considerations. None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript. All costs were covered by the hospital and the authors themselves. No funding from third parties was received. The costs of the mesh were covered within the Diagnoses Related Groups (DRG) system of the German Health Care System.

Conflict of interest

All authors disclose that no conflict of interests exist.

Ethical standard

Ethic commission Registration Number: A 2012-0093.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Interdisciplinary Breast Center, University of Rostock, Suedring 81, 18059, Rostock, Germany

    Dieterich M, Angres J, Stachs A, Reimer T, Gerber B & Stubert J

  2. Institute for Biostatistics and Informatics in Medicine, University of Rostock, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 8, 18057, Rostock, Germany

    Glass A

Authors
  1. Dieterich M
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angres J
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stachs A
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Glass A
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reimer T
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerber B
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stubert J
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dieterich M.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

M, D., J, A., A, S. et al. Patient-Report Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life in TiLOOP® Bra-Assisted or Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Alone. Aesth Plast Surg 39, 523–533 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0520-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0520-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation