Intervention Protocol

You have free access to this content

Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery

  1. Nicola Rocco1,*,
  2. Corrado Rispoli2,
  3. Lorenzo Moja3,
  4. Bruno Amato4,
  5. Loredana Iannone5,
  6. Serena Testa6,
  7. Andrea Spano1,
  8. Giuseppe Catanuto7,
  9. Antonello Accurso8,
  10. Maurizio Bruno Nava1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Breast Cancer Group

Published Online: 13 JAN 2014

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010895


How to Cite

Rocco N, Rispoli C, Moja L, Amato B, Iannone L, Testa S, Spano A, Catanuto G, Accurso A, Nava MB. Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD010895. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010895.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Milan, Italy

  2. 2

    Ascalesi Hospital, Department of General Surgery, Naples, Italy

  3. 3

    University of Milan - IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Milan, Italy

  4. 4

    Universita degli Studi di Napoli, Dipartimento di Chirurgia Generale (Edif. 6), Napoli, Italy

  5. 5

    Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Department of General Surgery, Naples, Italy

  6. 6

    University Federico II of Naples, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Naples, Italy

  7. 7

    Azienda Ospedaliera Cannizzaro, Multidisciplinary Breast Unit, Catania, Italy

  8. 8

    University Federico II of Naples, Department of General, Geriatric, Oncologic Surgery and Advanced Technologies, Naples, Italy

*Nicola Rocco, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. nicolarocco2003@libero.it.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 13 JAN 2014

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
 

Description of the condition

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide (excluding cancers of the skin), representing the second leading cause of cancer death among women (after lung cancer) in developed countries (American Cancer Society 2011). Since the 1940s, the incidence of breast cancer has gradually increased in Western countries at a rate of approximately 1% per year (Boyle 2005). On the other hand, mortality from breast cancer has declined in countries with organized, population-based mammography screening (Jonsson 2007). New and efficient therapeutic regimens have led to the prolonged survival of patients and an improved quality of life (Hortobagyi 2005). These interventions have considerably increased the number of breast cancer survivors; a further increase of 31% is expected in the decennium from 2005 to 2015 (De Angelis 2009).

Novel approaches in breast oncological surgery and new technologies in the global management of women diagnosed with breast cancer will allow patients to access the best, individually tailored treatment (Cordeiro 2008). Nevertheless, an estimated 28% to 60% of women affected by breast cancer will undergo a mastectomy (McGuire 2009). Breasts represent a strong symbol of femininity, the loss of which could lead to important psychological consequences, potentially damaging a woman's self-image and leading her to question her desirability as a sexual partner (Marin-Gutzke 2010). Following the surgical procedure to remove breast cancer, women face the challenge of deciding about breast reconstruction.

After oncological surgery for breast cancer, women can choose among many options for breast reconstruction to achieve the natural feel and comparable size and shape of the breast according to their individual needs (Djohan 2008). Women have the further possibility of deciding the type of breast reconstruction they prefer, selecting alternative measures such as external prostheses.

The same reconstructive options are available for the increasing number of women who undergo risk-reducing mastectomy because they are at high risk of developing breast cancer (ie, hereditary breast cancer) (Nelson 2012).

Women who undergo a mastectomy should be aware of all available reconstructive options and should discuss the benefits and limitations of each technique with their physician and plastic surgeon as they make their own motivated decision about their best course of action.

 

Description of the intervention

The demand for breast reconstructive surgery is increasing among women: The number of procedures performed more than doubled over the past decade, from 29,600 in 1992 to nearly 63,000 procedures in 2010, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS 2011).

Breast reconstruction can be performed at the same time that the oncological procedure is carried out to remove the breast cancer (immediate reconstruction), or it can be delayed (Champaneria 2012; D'Souza 2011) until all adjuvant treatments have been completed (postoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy).

Both immediate and delayed reconstruction can be performed using autologous tissue (ie, tissue used for surgical reconstruction that comes from the patient's own body, such as the musculocutaneous pedicled or free flaps) or using implants. Reconstruction with implants can occur in a one-stage (direct-to-implant reconstruction) or two-stage (tissue expander followed by permanent implant) intervention. The one-stage reconstruction option has been improved by the recent introduction of meshes (biological or synthetic) in breast surgery (Ho 2012).

Implant-based breast reconstruction usually involves the placement of breast implants filled with silicone gel or saline. The best results with implant-based reconstruction are achieved in patients with small or moderate breast volume and a low degree of ptosis (due to major symmetry between natural and reconstructed breasts) (Spear 2007).

Since silicone breast implants were introduced in 1961 (Blocksma 1965), four different generations of silicone prostheses have followed, leading to better results in terms of both short- and long-term surgical and esthetic outcomes (Champaneria 2012).

 

How the intervention might work

Implant-based breast reconstruction allows restoration of the woman's lost physical image with excellent cosmetic results (Spear 2007).

Moreover, breast implant positioning after a mastectomy represents a minimally invasive procedure when compared with autologous tissue breast reconstruction, without distant donor site–related morbidity (Jewell 2012).

However, the use of breast implants could be associated with some short- and long-term complications, including capsular contracture, infection, hematoma, seroma, rupture of the implant, and migration of the filler material (Accurso 2008; Barnsley 2006; Henriksen 2003). These complications can lead to reinterventions performed to replace the implant, resulting in additional costs to the patient, potentially suboptimal results, and higher probabilities of repeated adverse events (Baker 1978; Nahabedian 2009).

In particular, capsular contracture can span from simple breast induration to the development of a painful breast, with total distortion of its shape and volume. This can severely compromise the esthetic outcome and is the most significant reason for patient dissatisfaction following breast implant surgery (Handel 2006; Nahabedian 2009b). Capsular contracture rates after breast reconstruction range from 4% to 17% (Spear 2007). Radiotherapy increases the risk of complications by more than 40% in prosthetic-based reconstructions, increasing the rate of capsular contractures to 25% to 30% of patients (Kronowitz 2009; Nava 2011).

In addition, different types of implants (eg, textured, smooth, silicone- or saline-filled) exhibit different rates of complications (Hammond 2012; Maxwell 2012), although no consensus has been reached about the best implant-based reconstruction. Women undergoing this type of surgery should be aware of all of the possible complications and pitfalls related to these procedures.

 

Why it is important to do this review

Breast cancer control represents a major objective in public health; breast reconstruction after oncological procedures is one of the main objectives of the European Community for the next years (EU 2012). The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) has defined the requirements of a specialist breast unit, stressing the importance of post–oncological surgery reconstruction for a recognized breast unit (EUSOMA 2012).

Because breast reconstructive surgical techniques are almost standardized worldwide (Nahabedian 2009b; Querci della Rovere 2010), researchers' efforts should be directed at finding evidence regarding the best implants in terms of patient satisfaction, postoperative quality of life, women's safety, and cosmetic outcomes.

There are currently no systematic reviews in the scientific literature on this topic.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support

To assess the effects of different types of breast implants on capsular contracture, surgical short- and long-term complications, and postoperative satisfaction level and quality of life in women who have undergone reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomy.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

Any randomized or pseudo-randomized controlled trials (RCTs or pRCTs) comparing different types of breast implants will be considered for inclusion. Pseudo-randomized trials are defined as those presenting a predictable nonconcealed allocation (eg, simple alternation, date of birth, hospital admission number). Trials that do not specify the randomization method will be included.

In the absence of randomized trials, well-designed cohort or case control studies will be considered for a narrative description of available evidence.

 

Types of participants

Women undergoing reconstructive breast surgery with implants following mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer or for risk reduction.

 

Types of interventions

Different types of breast implants and different surgical procedures for reconstructive purposes.

Comparisons will be made among:

  • implant envelope surfaces: texturized versus smooth; different types of texturization;
  • implant filler material: silicone versus saline;
  • implant volume: variable versus fixed;
  • brands: different implant manufacturing companies; and
  • implant generation: fourth generation versus previous generations.

If flaps or other interventions (except oncological excisions) are performed along with implant positioning, data will be excluded.

We plan to perform cross-comparisons if the number of participants in each group will allow it.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

  • Capsular contracture rate and severity.

    • If assessed by a surgeon, Baker, Gylbert, and Spear (Baker 1978; Gylbert 1989; Spear 1995) classifications will be used to identify contracture severity.
    • Participants' subjective self-assessments or objective measurements of firmness (applanation tonometry) will be considered as other valid methods of identifying contracture severity.
    • We will consider studies with at least one year of follow-up.

  • Participant-reported outcomes: postoperative quality of life (psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being) or satisfaction level (satisfaction with breast and reconstructive outcome), as measured by BREAST-Q, EORTC QLQ-BR23, and SF-36.

 

Secondary outcomes

  • Implant rupture and filler material migration rates.

    • Filler material migration will be considered as evidence of filler material outside the capsule surrounding the implant at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or surgery.

  • Short-term complication rates: implant infection, seroma, hematoma, implant extrusion, and implant malpositioning.

  • Reintervention and long-term complication rates: late seroma (ie, seroma presenting longer than one month after surgery), double-capsule formation (ie, the presence of a double-layered capsule surrounding the implant at reintervention), and chronic pain (ie, pain that persists for longer than three months after surgery).

  • Cosmetic outcomes not reported by participants (ie, evaluation of reconstructive outcomes [eg, breast shape and symmetry] by the operating surgeon or by other clinicians).

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We will search the following databases.

  • The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's (CBCG's) Specialised Register. Details of the search strategies used by the Group for the identification of studies and the procedure used to code references are outlined in the Group's module (http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clabout/articles/BREASTCA/frame.html). Trials with the key words "breast reconstruction," "breast reconstructive surgery," "implant-based breast reconstruction," "mammaplasty," "silicone implant," "saline implant," "silicone breast implant," "saline breast implant," "breast implants," "implants," "silicone," "saline," "texturized implant," "smooth implant," "variable volume implant," and "fixed volume implant" will be extracted and considered for inclusion in the review.
  • MEDLINE (via Ovid SP) (from 1985 until search date). See Appendix 1.
  • EMBASE (via EMBASE.com) (from 1985 until search date). See Appendix 2.
  • CENTRAL (Issue 7, 2013). See Appendix 3.
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx) for all prospectively registered and ongoing trials. See Appendix 4.
  • Clinicaltrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/). See Appendix 5.

 

Searching other resources

We will try to identify further studies by reviewing reference lists of identified relevant trials or reviews. A copy of the full article for each reference reporting a potentially eligible trial will be obtained. When this is not possible, attempts will be made to contact study authors to request additional information.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

All abstracts identified by the search strategies described will be screened for duplicates and assessed by two independent review authors (CR and NR) to exclude studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion between two review authors; in cases of persistent disagreement, a third review author will be consulted (ST). The full publications of all potentially relevant abstracts will be obtained and formally assessed for inclusion. Trials in languages different from English will be included as well. Review authors will not be blinded to the names of the study authors, their corresponding institutions, the journal of publication, or the results.

 

Data extraction and management

A tailored data extraction form has been developed to record the details of the studies.

  • Methods: study design, year, country, language, duration, sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding.
  • Participants: source of participants, demographic characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, numbers of participants at baseline and completion, setting.
  • Interventions and controls: number of arms, definitions of interventions, materials, surgical techniques, timing of surgery.
  • Outcomes: list of assessed outcomes, definition of each outcome, outcome assessor, blinding of the assessor.
  • Results: follow-up data, analyses (intention-to-treat or per-protocol), withdrawals, and losses to follow-up.

Data will be extracted independently by two review authors (LI and ST); differences of opinion between review authors will be resolved through discussion with a third review author (LM). Missing or updated information will be sought by contacting study authors.

Quantitative data from trials with more than one publication will be extracted from the latest source; this will be considered as the primary reference.

All data will be managed by using the latest version of Review Manager Software (RevMan).

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors will independently evaluate each study for risk of bias using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2008b) for the domains of sequence generation; allocation concealment; blinding of health professionals, participants, and outcome assessors; incomplete outcome data; selective outcome reporting; and other potential threats to validity. Each domain will be judged as having low or high risk of bias, or unclear risk of bias. We will compare the judgments and will discuss and resolve any inconsistencies in the assessments.

 

Sequence generation for randomization

We will assess randomization as being at low risk of bias if the procedure of sequence generation was explicitly described and is considered adequate to produce comparable groups. Examples are computer-generated random numbers, a random numbers table, and coin tossing. If no description is given, study authors will be contacted, and if no response is received, a judgment of unclear risk will be made. As per the inclusion criteria, if a response suggests that a study is at high risk of bias (ie, not randomized), it will be excluded.

 

Allocation concealment

We will assess concealment of treatment allocation as being at low risk of bias if the procedure was explicitly described and is considered adequate to ensure that intervention allocations could not have been foreseen in advance of, or during, enrollment. Examples are centralized randomization, numbered or coded containers, and sealed envelopes. High risk of bias procedures include alternation and references to case record numbers or dates of birth. If no description is given, study authors will be contacted; if no response is received, a judgment of unclear risk will be made. If allocation concealment has not occurred, a judgment of high risk of bias will be made.

 

Blinding of health professionals, participants, and outcome assessors

In this context, surgeons usually are not blinded to the surgical procedure and associated elements (eg, type of implant). The risk of bias associated with blinding of health professionals and participants will be assessed primarily on the basis of the likelihood that such blinding was sufficient to ensure that caregivers and women had no knowledge of which intervention had been received.

Even if the surgeon could not be blinded, it is possible that the health care professionals who followed participants after the procedure was performed could be blinded, and contact between other caregivers and the surgeon could be avoided. Other blinding techniques that we will evaluate are those in which participants were instructed that they should not tell outcome assessors the surgery received.

We will describe for each included study the methods used, if any, to blind the outcome assessor from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. We will judge studies to be at low risk of bias if the outcome assessors were blinded, or if we ascertain that lack of blinding may not have affected the results. If authors state that blinding was not possible because of the nature of the intervention, we will still judge the study at high risk of bias because it is possible that lack of blinding influenced the results. Blinding of health professionals will be signaled if reported.

If no description is given, study authors will be contacted, and if no response is received, a judgment of unclear risk will be made.

 

Incomplete outcome data

Incomplete outcome data essentially include attrition, exclusions, and missing data.

We will assign "low" risk of bias if participants included in the analysis are exactly those who were randomly assigned into the trial, and if missing outcome data are balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups, or if no outcome data are missing; for dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk is not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate; for continuous outcome data, if plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes is not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size; or if missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods.

We will consider "high" risk of bias for any of the following: when reasons for missing outcome data are likely to be related to the true outcome, with imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups; for dichotomous outcome data, when the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk is enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention effect estimate; for continuous outcome data, when plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes is enough to induce clinically relevant bias in observed effect size; and when "as-treated’ analysis is done with substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomization, with a potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation.

We will assign as "unclear" (uncertain risk of bias) when reporting of attrition/exclusions is insufficient to permit judgment of low or high risk of bias, or when the study did not address this outcome. Also, when the numbers randomly assigned into intervention and control groups are not clearly reported, the risk of bias is unclear.

 

Selective outcome reporting

We will assess reporting of outcomes as "low risk of bias" when all study outcomes declared in the Methods section have been reported in the results. We will also evaluate whether different reports of the study are available, including protocols, and will examine them to ensure that no suggestion of selective outcome reporting is made. If no description is given, study authors will be contacted, and if no response is received, a judgment of unclear will be made. If evidence suggests selective reporting, a judgment of high risk will be made.

 

Other potential threats to validity

We will assess other threats to validity as "low risk of bias" if the study appears to be free of other sources of bias, such as being stopped early because of a data-dependent process or having a baseline imbalance between the groups. Examples that may pose a risk of bias could include sources of sponsorship or funding.

When the risk of bias is unclear from published information, we will attempt to contact study authors for clarification. If this is not forthcoming, we will assess studies as at unclear risk of bias.

The review authors will not be blinded to the titles of journals or the identities of study authors, as they are familiar with the field. In cases of differently scored items, the two review authors will try to find agreement by discussion. A third review author will resolve any persisting disagreement.

The overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach (Guyatt 2008). The GRADE approach appraises the quality of a body of evidence based on the extent to which one can be confident that an estimate of effect or association reflects the item being assessed. Randomized trials start as high-quality evidence but may be downgraded because of risk of bias (methodological quality), indirectness of evidence, unexplained heterogeneity, imprecision (sparse data), and publication bias. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome will be determined after each of these factors is considered and graded as follows.

  • High: Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of effect.
  • Moderate: Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
  • Low: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
  • Very low: Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

 

Measures of treatment effect

 

Dichotomous outcomes

Dichotomous outcomes (eg, presence/absence of infection) will be reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Using control event risks from the included trials, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) and the associated 95% confidence interval will be calculated for statistically significant dichotomous outcomes. For unwanted effects (eg, adverse events), the NNTB becomes the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) and will be calculated in the same way.

 

Ordinal outcomes

If outcome data are provided on an ordinal scale (eg, for severity of capsular contracture: minimal, moderate, severe), we will select a threshold based on the definition of clinically significant contracture and will convert these data into a dichotomous form. If it is not possible to split ordinal data into dichotomous outcomes to meet our a priori definition, we will assign a numeric score to each category and will analyze the results as continuous data.

 

Continuous outcomes

We will calculate mean differences (MDs) of change scores if all studies use the same measurement scale. When studies use different scales, we will calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs), using Hedges g. If necessary, we will calculate effect estimates from P values, t statistics analysis of variance (ANOVA) tables, or other statistics (Higgins 2011b).

For this analysis, we will use, according to need, either change scores or final values without combining them.

 

Unit of analysis issues

For each included study, we will determine whether the unit of analysis is appropriate for the unit of randomization and the design of each study (ie, whether the number of observations matches the number of "units" randomly assigned). It is unlikely that we will find cluster-randomized trials because this design is uncommon in this field. If we include a cluster-randomized trial, we will use the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to convert trials to their effective sample size before incorporating them into the meta-analysis, as per the recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions (Higgins 2008c). When the ICC is not provided, we will use values for ICCs available in the published literature (Campbell 2000).

 

Studies with multiple treatment arms

In the primary analysis, we will combine results across all eligible intervention arms and will compare them with combined results across all eligible control arms (alternative surgical procedure), making single, pairwise comparisons. When such a strategy prevents investigation of potential sources of heterogeneity, we will analyze each surgical procedure separately (against a common control group) but will divide the sample size for common comparator arms proportionately across each comparison (Higgins 2008c). This simple approach allows the use of standard software (including RevMan) and prevents inappropriate double-counting of individuals.

 

Dealing with missing data

When data are missing, we will contact the corresponding authors of included studies to request any unreported data. For all outcomes in all studies, we will carry out analyses as far as possible on an intention-to-treat basis (ie, we will attempt to include all participants randomly assigned to each group in the analyses), and we will analyze all participants in the groups to which they were allocated, regardless of whether they received the allocated intervention. For continuous data that are missing, we will estimate standard deviations from other available data such as standard errors, or we will impute them using the methods suggested in Higgins 2008c. We will make no assumptions about loss to follow-up for continuous data, and we will base analyses on those participants completing the trial. If a discrepancy is noted between the number randomly assigned and the number analyzed in each treatment group, we will calculate and report the percentage lost to follow-up in each group. When it is not possible to obtain missing data, we will record this fact on the data collection form and will report it in the "Risk of bias" table; we will discuss the extent to which the missing data could alter the results/conclusions of the review. For included studies, we will note levels of attrition. We will explore the impact of including studies with high levels of missing data in the overall assessment of treatment effect by using sensitivity analyses.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We will consider both clinical and statistical heterogeneity. If studies appear similar in terms of the level of participants, intervention type, and outcome type, we will pool the data in a meta-analysis.
Heterogeneity of effect sizes will be assessed using the I2 statistic (Higgins 2003) and the Q (Chi2) (Cochran 1954).

I2 indicates the percentage of variability due to "between-studies" (or inter-study) variability as opposed to "within-study" (or intra-study) variability.

We will interpret I2 as suggested by the latest version of Higgins 2011.

  • 0% to 40%: might not be important.
  • 30% to 60%: may represent moderate heterogeneity.
  • 50% to 90%: may represent substantial heterogeneity.
  • 75% to 100%: may represent considerable heterogeneity.

We will also evaluate the confidence interval for I2.

The Q (Chi2) statistic will be set at P < 0.10 because of the low statistical power of the test.

If statistical evidence is obtained for homogeneity of effect sizes, the analysis will use a fixed-effect model. When statistically significant heterogeneity is noted, a careful clinical review of the data will be done to find the source. The review authors will then decide (1) to redo the analysis using the homogenous subgroup (only if a clear and compelling reason to exclude the heterogeneous data can be found); (2) to abandon statistically combining the trials in favor of providing a narrative review of the literature; or (3) to redo the analysis using the random-effects model (DerSimonian 1986).

 

Assessment of reporting biases

We will use a funnel plot to explore bias (Egger 1997; Macaskill 2001) in the presence of at least 10 trials for our primary outcome. Asymmetry in the funnel plot of trial size against treatment effect will be used to assess this bias. We will undertake a linear regression approach as described by Egger 1997 to determine funnel plot asymmetry in the presence of at least 10 trials for the outcome.

 

Data synthesis

Results will be combined unless diversity (surgical and/or statistical heterogeneity) suggests that combination is unreasonable. If both a continuous outcome and a dichotomous outcome are available for an outcome, we will include only the dichotomous outcome (ie, risk ratio [RR]) in the primary analysis. Capsular contracture rates will be summarized using risk differences if these events are found to be rare (ie, less than 10%). If some studies report an outcome as a continuous measure and others use a dichotomous measure of the same construct, we will convert results for the former from the continuous measure to a dichotomous measure, provided that we can assume a positive/negative threshold based on the definition of clinically significant contracture (otherwise, we will carry out two separate analyses). If outcomes are reported at different time points exceeding one year, data will be pooled for each point and will be combined with data from other trials at similar time points. This will lead to an estimate of the onset and persistence of treatment effect, at least over the time points available for the combination of data. A decision regarding the time points to be included in the final analysis will be made by consensus after the data have been collected.

We will calculate all overall effects using inverse variance methods, with the variance including between-study variation (ie, DerSimonian 1986 random-effects models).

We will carry out statistical analysis using Review Manager software (Review Manager 2011). We will perform meta-analyses according to the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins 2011). We will conduct meta-analyses using RevMan 5 (RevMan) and will develop a "Summary of findings" table.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Subgroup analyses will be done to explore effect size differences, as follows.

  • Trials with low bias risk compared with trials with high bias risk.
  • Low-quality trials versus high-quality trials (allocation concealment vs lack of allocation concealment, blinding vs lack of blinding).
  • One- versus two-stage reconstruction.
  • Radiotherapy-treated participants versus non–radiotherapy-treated participants.
  • Reconstruction after breast cancer treatment versus reconstruction after risk-reducing procedures.
  • Early breast cancer versus locally advanced breast cancer.

We will use the "test for interaction" to identify differences between subgroups. We will use meta-regression (in the presence of adequate numbers of trials) to determine the influence of different factors on the effect estimate.

Evidence and clinical implications will be graded on the basis of the quality of the single-component approach in the following order of preference: detection bias, selection bias, and attrition bias. Discordance between data sources will be resolved using this grading system, with higher-graded studies taking precedence over lower-graded studies.

 

Sensitivity analysis

We will conduct sensitivity analyses to determine whether the findings are sensitive to restricting the analyses to studies judged to be at low risk of bias for generation of allocation sequence of the primary outcome. In addition, we will assess the sensitivity of findings to any imputed data by calculating the treatment effect while including and excluding imputed data to see whether this alters the outcome of the analysis. We will investigate the effects of dropouts and exclusions by conducting worst-case versus best-case scenario analyses.

If sensitivity analyses confirm the results of the main analysis, we will regard the results of the review with a higher degree of confidence.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support

None.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
 

Appendix 1. MEDLINE


# ▲Searches

1exp Breast Neoplasms/Multimedia(0)

2breast neoplasm$.mp.Multimedia(3)

3breast cancer$.mp.Multimedia(14842)

4(Breast adj6 cancer$).mp.Multimedia(15439)

5(Breast adj6 neoplasm$).mp.Multimedia(9)

61 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5Multimedia(15443)

7exp Mammaplasty/Multimedia(0)

8exp Surgery, Plastic/Multimedia(0)

9exp Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/Multimedia(0)

10exp "Prostheses and Implants"/Multimedia(0)

11mammoplasty.mp.Multimedia(37)

12mammaplasty.mp.Multimedia(174)

13mammoplast$.mp.Multimedia(37)

14mammaplast$.mp.Multimedia(178)

15breast reconstruction$.mp.Multimedia(1510)

16breast reconstructive surger$.mp.Multimedia(7)

17implant-based breast reconstruction$.mp.Multimedia(94)

18exp Breast Implants/Multimedia(0)

19exp Silicone Gels/Multimedia(0)

20silicone breast implant$.mp.Multimedia(64)

21saline breast implant$.mp.Multimedia(3)

22saline-filled breast implant$.mp.Multimedia(0)

23texturi#ed implant.mp.Multimedia(0)

24smooth implant.mp.Multimedia(8)

25implant envelope surface.mp.Multimedia(0)

26variable volume implant.mp.Multimedia(0)

27fixed volume implant.mp.Multimedia(0)

28texturi#ation.mp.Multimedia(0)

29(implant$ adj5 breast reconstruction).mp.Multimedia(194)

30(implant$ adj5 breast reconstructive surger$).mp.Multimedia(0)

31(silicone adj5 breast implant$).mp.Multimedia(69)

32(saline adj5 breast implant$).mp.Multimedia(11)

33(texturi#ed adj5 implant$).mp.Multimedia(0)

34(smooth adj5 implant$).mp.Multimedia(50)

357 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34Multimedia(1836)

366 and 35Multimedia(70)

37Animals/Multimedia(0)

38Humans/Multimedia(0)

3937 not 38Multimedia(0)

4036 not 39Multimedia(70)



 

Appendix 2. EMBASE

  1. 'breast cancer'/exp
  2. breast NEAR/6 cancer
  3. breast NEAR/6 neoplasm
  4. #1 OR #2 OR #3
  5. 'breast reconstruction'/exp OR 'breast reconstruction'
  6. 'mammaplasty'/exp OR mammaplasty
  7. 'mammoplasty'/exp OR mammoplasty
  8. 'plastic surgery'/exp OR 'plastic surgery'
  9. 'breast implant'/exp OR 'breast implant'
  10. 'breast reconstructive surgery'
  11. 'implant-based breast reconstruction'
  12. 'silicone gel'/exp OR 'silicone gel'
  13. 'silicone breast implant'/exp OR 'silicone breast implant'
  14. 'saline breast implant'
  15. 'saline-filled breast implant'
  16. 'texturized implant'
  17. 'texturised implant'
  18. 'smooth implant'
  19. 'implant envelope surface'
  20. 'variable volume implant'
  21. 'fixed volume implant'
  22. texturization
  23. texturisation
  24. implant NEAR/5 'breast reconstruction'
  25. implant NEAR/5 'breast reconstructive surgery'
  26. silicone NEAR/5 'breast implant'
  27. saline NEAR/5 'breast implant'
  28. texturized NEAR/5 implant
  29. texturised NEAR/5 implant
  30. smooth NEAR/5 implant
  31. #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR#28 OR #29 OR #30
  32. #4 AND #31
  33. #32 AND [humans]/lim AND [embase]/lim

 

Appendix 3. CENTRAL

#1 MeSH descriptor: [Breast Neoplasms] explode all trees

#2 breast cancer* or breast neoplasm*

#3 #1 or #2

#4 MeSH descriptor: [Mammaplasty] explode all trees

#5 MeSH descriptor: [Reconstructive Surgical Procedures] explode all trees

#6 MeSH descriptor: [Surgery, Plastic] explode all trees

#7 MeSH descriptor: [Prostheses and Implants] explode all trees

#8 mammoplast*

#9 mammaplast*

#10 breast reconstruction*

#11 breast reconstructive surger*

#12 implant-based breast reconstruction*

#13 MeSH descriptor: [Breast Implants] explode all trees

#14 MeSH descriptor: [Silicone Gels] explode all trees

#15 silicone breast implant*

#16 saline breast implant*

#17 saline-filled breast implant*

#18 texturised implant or texturized implant

#19 smooth implant

#20 implant envelope surface

#21 variable volume implant

#22 fixed volume implant

#23 implant and breast reconstruct*

#24 #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22 or #23

#25 #3 and #24

 

Appendix 4. WHO ICTRP search portal

Basic Searches:

1. Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery

2. breast cancer AND implant

3. reconstructive breast surgery AND implant

4. breast reconstruction and implant

5. mammoplasty AND breast implant

6. mammaplasty AND breast implant

Advanced Searches:

1. Title: Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery

Recruitment Status: ALL

2. Condition: breast cancer

Intervention: implant AND (reconstructive breast surgery OR breast reconstruction)
Recruitment Status: ALL

3. Condition: breast cancer

Intervention: (silicone OR saline) AND breast implant
Recruitment Status: ALL

4. Condition: breast cancer

Intervention: implant-based breast reconstruction OR mammoplasty OR mammaplasty
Recruitment Status: ALL

 

Appendix 5. Clinicaltrials.gov

Basic Searches:

1. Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery

2. breast cancer AND implant

3. reconstructive breast surgery AND implant

4. breast reconstruction and implant

5. mammoplasty AND breast implant

6. mammaplasty AND breast implant

Advanced Searches:

1. Title: Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery

Recruitment Status: All Studies
Study Results: All Studies
Study Type: All Studies
Gender: All Studies

2. Condition: breast cancer

Intervention: implant AND (reconstructive breast surgery OR breast reconstruction)
Recruitment Status: All Studies
Study Results: All Studies
Study Type: All Studies
Gender: All Studies

3. Condition: breast cancer

Intervention: (silicone OR saline) AND breast implant
Recruitment Status: All Studies
Study Results: All Studies
Study Type: All Studies
Gender: All Studies

4. Condition: breast cancer

Intervention: implant-based breast reconstruction OR mammoplasty OR mammaplasty
Recruitment Status: All Studies
Study Results: All Studies
Study Type: All Studies
Gender: All Studies

 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support

  1. Drafting of the protocol: NR, CR, BA, AA
  2. Study selection: NR, CR, LI, MBN
  3. Disagreement resolution: NR, ST, LI
  4. Data analysis: CR, LM, AS, GC

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support

None known.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
 

Internal sources

  • No sources of support, Not specified.

 

External sources

  • No sources of support, Not specified.

References

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Appendices
  8. Contributions of authors
  9. Declarations of interest
  10. Sources of support
  11. Additional references
Accurso 2008
  • Accurso A, Rocco N, Feleppa C, Palumbo A, D'Andrea F. Spread of silicone to axillary lymph nodes after high cohesive gel silicone implant rupture. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2008;122(6):221e-2e.
American Cancer Society 2011
  • American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2011-2012. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc.
ASPS 2011
  • American Society of Plastic Surgeons. National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Statistics. 2011 Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. www.plasticsurgery.org/Documents/news-resources/statistics/2011-statistics/2011_Stats_Full_Report.pdf 2011 (accessed 01 December 2013).
Baker 1978
  • Baker J. Augmentation mammaplasty. Symposium on Aesthetic Surgery of the Breast: Proceedings of the Symposium of the Educational Foundation of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery in Scottsdale, Ariz., November 23–26, 1975. 1978:256-63.
Barnsley 2006
  • Barnsley GP, Sigurdson LF, Barnsley SE. Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2006;117:2182-90.
Blocksma 1965
  • Blocksma R, Braley S. The silicones in plastic surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1965;33:366-70.
Boyle 2005
Campbell 2000
  • Campbell M, Grimshaw J, Steen N. Sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials. Changing Professional Practice in Europe Group (EU BIOMED II Concerted Action). Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2000;5:12-6.
Champaneria 2012
  • Champaneria MC, Wong WW, Hill ME, Gupta SC. The evolution of breast reconstruction: a historical perspective. World Journal of Surgery 2012 Apr;36(4):730-42.
Cochran 1954
Cordeiro 2008
D'Souza 2011
  • D'Souza N, Darmanin G, Fedorowicz Z. Immediate versus delayed reconstruction following surgery for breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 7.
De Angelis 2009
DerSimonian 1986
Djohan 2008
  • Djohan R, Gage E, Bernard S. Breast reconstruction options following mastectomy. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2008;75(Suppl 1):S17-23.
Egger 1997
  • Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629-34.
EU 2012
  • European Commission Heatlh Programme 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/policy/index_en.htm accessed 01 December 2013.
EUSOMA 2012
  • Breast unit guidelines. http://www.eusoma.org accessed 01 December 2013.
Guyatt 2008
  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. BMJ 2008;336:924-6.
Gylbert 1989
  • Gylbert LOA, Jurell G, Olenius M. Results of subglandular breast augmentation using a new classification method: 18-year follow-up. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 1989;23:133-6.
Hammond 2012
  • Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA, Garcia ME, Phillips CA. Mentor Contour Profile Gel implants: clinical outcomes at 6 years. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2012;129(6):1381-91.
Handel 2006
  • Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA. A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2006;117:757-67; discussion 768-72.
Henriksen 2003
  • Henriksen TF, Hölmich LR, Fryzek JP, Friis S, McLaughlin JK, Høyer AP, et al. Incidence and severity of short-term complications after breast augmentation: results from a nationwide breast implant registry. Annals of Plastic Surgery 2003;51:531-9.
Higgins 2003
Higgins 2008b
  • Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008:187-241.
Higgins 2008c
  • Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008:481-529.
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Higgins 2011b
  • Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Ho 2012
  • Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix-assisted breast reconstruction. Annals of Plastic Surgery 2012;68(4):346-56.
Hortobagyi 2005
  • Hortobagyi GN, de la Garza Salazar J, Pritchard K, Amadori D, Haidinger R, Hudis CA, et al. The global breast cancer burden: variations in epidemiology and survival. Clinical Breast Cancer 2005;6(5):391-401.
Jewell 2012
  • Jewell ML. Silicone gel breast implants at 50: the state of the science. Aesthetic Surgery 2012;32(8):1031-4.
Jonsson 2007
  • Jonsson H, Bordas P, Wallin H, Nystrom L, Lenner P. Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality - an update. Journal of Medical Screening 2007;14(2):87-93.
Kronowitz 2009
Macaskill 2001
Marin-Gutzke 2010
Maxwell 2012
  • Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 2012;32(6):709-17.
McGuire 2009
  • McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P, Meade T, Parbhoo J, Mathias M, et al. Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13-years trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2009;16(10):2682-90.
Nahabedian 2009
Nahabedian 2009b
  • Nahabedian MY. Oncoplastic Surgery of the Breast. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Limited, 2009.
Nava 2011
  • Nava MB, Pennati AE, Lozza L, Spano A, Zambetti M, Catanuto G. Outcome of different timings of radiotherapy in implant-based breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2011;128(2):353-8.
Nelson 2012
  • Nelson JA, Tchou J, Domchek S, Sonnad SS, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Breast reconstruction in bilateral prophylactic mastectomy patients: factors that influence decision making. Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Aesthetic Surgery 2012;65:1481-9.
Querci della Rovere 2010
  • Querci della Rovere G, Benson JR, Nava MB. Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Surgery of the Breast. 2nd Edition. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2010.
RevMan
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Spear 1995
Spear 2007