Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire
<h4>Introduction</h4> <p>The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led...
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal article |
| Lenguaje: | English |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier
2017
|
| _version_ | 1826265026063761408 |
|---|---|
| author | Mylvaganam, S Conroy, E Williamson, P Barnes, N Cutress, R Gardiner, M Jain, A Skillman, J Thrush, S Whisker, L Blazeby, J Potter, S Holcombe, C |
| author_facet | Mylvaganam, S Conroy, E Williamson, P Barnes, N Cutress, R Gardiner, M Jain, A Skillman, J Thrush, S Whisker, L Blazeby, J Potter, S Holcombe, C |
| author_sort | Mylvaganam, S |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <h4>Introduction</h4> <p>The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK.</p> <h4>Methods</h4> <p>A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined.</p> <h4>Results</h4> <p>81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50e80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0e3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0e3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n ¼ 62) and synthetic (n ¼ 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:17:11Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:2c845bf2-d34a-44e1-af02-21e1a0d25c3f |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:17:11Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:2c845bf2-d34a-44e1-af02-21e1a0d25c3f2022-03-26T12:37:46ZVariation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaireJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:2c845bf2-d34a-44e1-af02-21e1a0d25c3fEnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordElsevier2017Mylvaganam, SConroy, EWilliamson, PBarnes, NCutress, RGardiner, MJain, ASkillman, JThrush, SWhisker, LBlazeby, JPotter, SHolcombe, C <h4>Introduction</h4> <p>The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK.</p> <h4>Methods</h4> <p>A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined.</p> <h4>Results</h4> <p>81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50e80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0e3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0e3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n ¼ 62) and synthetic (n ¼ 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Mylvaganam, S Conroy, E Williamson, P Barnes, N Cutress, R Gardiner, M Jain, A Skillman, J Thrush, S Whisker, L Blazeby, J Potter, S Holcombe, C Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire |
| title | Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire |
| title_full | Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire |
| title_fullStr | Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire |
| title_full_unstemmed | Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire |
| title_short | Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire |
| title_sort | variation in the provision and practice of implant based breast reconstruction in the uk results from the ibra national practice questionnaire |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mylvaganams variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT conroye variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT williamsonp variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT barnesn variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT cutressr variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT gardinerm variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT jaina variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT skillmanj variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT thrushs variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT whiskerl variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT blazebyj variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT potters variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire AT holcombec variationintheprovisionandpracticeofimplantbasedbreastreconstructionintheukresultsfromtheibranationalpracticequestionnaire |