Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38985220›Full record

Observational studyBreast cancer research and treatment2024

Three and twelve-month analysis of the PROM-Q study: comparison of patient-reported outcome measures using the BREAST-Q questionnaire in pre- vs. sub-pectoral implant-based immediate breast reconstruction.

Ritika Rampal, Stacey Jessica Jones, Sue Hartup, Clare Robertson, Wasif Tahir, Sian Louise Jones, Shireen McKenzie, Jessica Anne Savage, Baek Kim

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04842240 (Comparison of Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Pre Versus Sub-pectoral Implant Based Breast Reconstruction), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04842240 unknown statusnot on this map

Comparison of Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Pre Versus Sub-pectoral Implant Based Breast Reconstruction

TypeobservationalSponsorThe Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustRan2019 to 2022Enrolled60ConditionsBreast Disease, Breast Cancer, Patient Satisfaction, SurgeryArmsPre- or sub-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Hot Topics in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ritika RampalThe Breast Unit at the Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. Ritika.rampal1@nhs.net.
Stacey Jessica JonesDepartment of Breast Surgery, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, Huddersfield, HD3 3EA, UK.
Sue HartupThe Breast Unit at the Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
Clare RobertsonThe Breast Unit at the Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
Wasif TahirThe Breast Unit at the Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
Sian Louise JonesThe Breast Unit at the Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
Shireen McKenzieThe Breast Unit at the Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
Jessica Anne SavageDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Salisbury District Hospital, Salisbury, SP2 8BJ, UK.
Baek KimThe Breast Unit at the Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImplant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is being increasingly performed with implant placed above the pectoral muscle (pre-pectoral), instead of below the pectoral muscle (sub-pectoral). Currently, there is a lack of comparative data on clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- vs. sub-pectoral IBR. We investigated whether this difference in surgical approach influenced clinical or patient-perceived outcomes.

methodsThis prospective non-randomised longitudinal cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04842240) recruited patients undergoing immediate IBR at the Leeds Breast Unit (Sep 2019-Sep 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics and post-operative complications. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were collected using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at baseline, 2 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery.

resultsSeventy-eight patients underwent IBR (46 patients pre-pectoral; 59% vs. 32 patients sub-pectoral; 41%). Similar complication rates were observed (15.2% pre-pectoral vs. 9.4% sub-pectoral; p = 0.44). Overall implant loss rate was 3.8% (6.5% pre-pectoral vs. 0% sub-pectoral; p = 0.13). Respective median Breast-Q scores for pre- and sub-pectoral IBR at 3 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 48; p = 0.01), psychosocial well-being (60 vs. 57; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 76; p = 0.53), and Animation Q scores (73 vs. 76; p = 0.45). Respective Breast-Q scores at 12 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 53; p = 0.3), psychosocial well-being (59 vs. 60; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 78; p = 0.18), and Animation Q scores (69 vs. 73; p = 0.4).

conclusionsThis study demonstrates equivalent clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- and sub-pectoral IBR. The study findings can be utilised to aid informed decision making regarding either surgical option.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantationBreast ImplantsBreast NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMammaplastyMastectomyMiddle AgedPectoralis MusclesPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesBreast implant reconstructionBreast reconstructionPatient-reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID38985220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.