The New Trend of Pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction: An Objective Evaluation of the Quality of Online Information for Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction

  • M. MarcascianoEmail author
  • J. Frattaroli
  • F. L. R. Mori
  • F. Lo Torto
  • P. Fioramonti
  • E. Cavalieri
  • J. Kaciulyte
  • M. Greco
  • D. Casella
  • D. Ribuffo
Original Article Breast Surgery


The Web has increasingly become the major source of information about health care, and patients who need to undergo breast reconstruction often use the internet to acquire an initial knowledge on the subject. We would like to present our study that investigates the quality of published information on pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. We searched the term “Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction” on Google® and Yahoo®. Forty-two web sites were selected and underwent qualitative and quantitative assessment using the expanded EQIP tool. The analysis of document contents showed a critical lack of information about qualitative risks and side-effects descriptions, treatment of potential complications, alert signs for the patient and precautions that the patient may take. Health professionals should inform patients about the potential difficulties of identifying reliable informational web sites about pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. The quality of available information should be improved, especially the important topics included in the content data section of the modified EQIP tool.

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


Immediate breast reconstruction Pre-pectoral implant Equip test Breast cancer 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Arif N, Ghezzi P (2018) Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. Breast 37:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nguyen SK, Ingledew PA (2013) Tangled in the breast cancer web: an evaluation of the usage of web-based information resources by breast cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 28(4):662–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Walden JL, Panagopoulous G, Shrader SW (2010) Contemporary decision making and perception in patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 30(3):395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manley L, Ghezzi P (2018) The quality of online health information on breast augmentation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(10):e62–e63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waterman AD, Stanley SL, Covelli T et al (2006) Living donation decision making: recipients’ concerns and educational needs. Prog Transpl 16:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marcasciano M, Mazzocchi M, Kaciulyte J, Spissu N, Casella D, Ribuffo D, Dessy LA (2018) Skin cancers and dermal substitutes: is it safe? Review of the literature and presentation of a 2-stage surgical protocol for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancers of the head in fragile patients. Int Wound J 15(5):756–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dessy LA, Marcasciano M, Fanelli B, Mazzocchi M, Ribuffo D (2016) Surgical treatment of nasal non-melanoma skin cancer in elderly patients using dermal substitute. Acta Otolaryngol 136(12):1299–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weir HK, Anderson RN, Coleman King SM et al (2016) Heart disease and cancer deaths—trends and projections in the United States, 1969–2020. Prev Chronic Dis 13:E157Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fausto A, Bernini M, La Forgia D, Fanizzi A, Marcasciano M, Volterrani L, Casella D, Mazzei MA (2018) Six-year prospective evaluation of second-look US with volume navigation for MRI-detected additional breast lesions. Eur Radiol. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panchal H, Matros E (2017) Current trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):7S–13SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamali P, Zettervall SL, Wu W et al (2017) Differences in the reporting of racial and socioeconomic disparities among three large national databases for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:795–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ et al (2013) A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Sordi S, Kothari A, Kovacs T, Lo Torto F, Cigna E, Ribuffo D, Calabrese C (2018) Nipple-sparing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with TiLoop® Bra mesh in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: a prospective study of long-term and patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q. Breast 39:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maruccia M, Di Taranto G, Onesti MG (2018) One-stage muscle-sparing breast reconstruction in elderly patients: a new tool for retaining excellent quality of life. Breast J 24(2):180–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walia GS, Aston J, Bello R, Mackert GA, Pedreira RA, Cho BH, Carl HM, Rada EM, Rosson GD, Sacks JM (2018) Prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander placement: a clinical and quality of life outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6(4):e1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Onesti MG, Maruccia M, Di Taranto G, Albano A, Soda G, Ballesio L, Scuderi N (2017) Clinical, histological, and ultrasound follow-up of breast reconstruction with one-stage muscle-sparing “wrap” technique: a single-center experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70(11):1527–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marcasciano M, Kaciulyte J, Marcasciano F, Lo Torto F, Ribuffo D, Casella D (2018) “No Drain, No Gain”: simultaneous seroma drainage and tissue expansion in pre-pectoral tissue expander-based breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carlesimo B, Lo Torto F, Rossi A, Marcasciano M, Ruggiero M (2014) Long-term result of bilateral pectoralis major muscle advancement flap in median sternotomy wound infections. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 18(24):3767–3772Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW (2002) Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 17(3):180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macdonald C, Lloyd MS, Mathur B, Ramakrishnan V (2010) Breast reconstruction: a quantitative assessment of the quality of information available to patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(10):e752–e753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cline RJ, Haynes KM (2001) Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 16(6):671–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV (2008) Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns 70(3):407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eysenbach G, Köhler C (2002) How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 324(7337):573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lynch NP, Lang B, Angelov S, McGarrigle SA, Boyle TJ, Al-Azawi D, Connolly EM (2017) Breast reconstruction post mastectomy—let’s Google it. Accessibility, readability and quality of online information. Breast 32:126–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    eBizMBA (2018) Top 15 most popular search engines: May 2018. website. Accessed Nov 2018
  27. 27.
    Palma AF, Zuk G, Raptis DA, Franck S, Eylert G, Frueh FS, Guggenheim M, Shafighi M (2016) Quality of information for women seeking breast augmentation in the Internet. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 50(5):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF et al (2015) Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 150:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang P, Li CZ, Wu CT et al (2017) Comparison of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy and mastectomy alone for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fausto A, Bernini M, Giacomo LD et al (2018) Diagnostic value and safety of dynamic MRI of contralateral breast and axilla in subjects with tissue expander. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(9):1282–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wallace MS, Wallace AM, Lee J et al (1996) Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women. Pain 66:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M et al (2016) Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4:e708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maruccia M, Mazzocchi M, Dessy LA et al (2016) One-stage breast reconstruction techniques in elderly patients to preserve quality of life. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 20:5058–5066Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M et al (2017) Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg 6(6):682–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marcasciano M, Conversi A, Kaciulyte J, Dessy LA (2017) RE: prosthetic breast implant rupture: imaging—pictorial essay: full cooperation between surgeon and radiologist—”The Best of Both Worlds”. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(6):1478–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lo Torto F, Parisi P, Casella D et al (2018) Impact of evolving radiation therapy techniques on implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(1):182e–183eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lo Torto F, Vaia N, Casella D et al (2018) Delaying implant-based mammary reconstruction after radiotherapy does not decrease capsular contracture: an in vitro study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(1):28–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lo Torto F, Cigna E, Kaciulyte J et al (2017) National breast reconstruction utilization in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy: two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee KT, Mun GH (2016) Updated evidence of acellular dermal matrix use for implant-based breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 23(2):600–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bernini M, Calabrese C, Cecconi L et al (2016) Subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: surgical, functional, and aesthetic results after long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(12):e574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Casella D, Bernini M, Bencini L et al (2014) TiLoop® Bra mesh used for immediate breast reconstruction: comparison of retropectoral and subcutaneous implant placement in a prospective single institution series. Eur J Plast Surg 37(11):599–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Casella D, Calabrese C, Bianchi S et al (2016) Subcutaneous tissue expander placement with synthetic titanium-coated mesh in breast reconstruction: long-term results. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(12):e577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dessy LA, Maruccia M, Mazzocchi M, Scuderi N (2014) Treatment of post mastectomy pain syndrome after mastopexy with botulinum toxin. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(6):873–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marcasciano M, Kaciulyte J, Gentilucci M et al (2018) Skin-reduction breast reconstructions with prepectoral implant covered by a combined dermal flap and titanium-coated polypropylene mesh. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(8):1123–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vaia N, Lo Torto F, Marcasciano M et al (2018) From the “Fat Capsule” to the “Fat Belt”: limiting protective lipofilling on irradiated expanders for breast reconstruction to selective key areas. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(4):986–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Calabrese C, Kothari A, Badylak S et al (2018) Oncological safety of stromal vascular fraction enriched fat grafting in two-stage breast reconstruction after nipple sparing mastectomy: long-term results of a prospective study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 22(15):4768–4777Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dessy LA, Marcasciano M, Pacitti F, Rossi A, Mazzocchi M (2015) A simple device for syringe-to-syringe transfer during lipofilling. Aesthet Surg J 35(1):91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC (2007) Untangling the Web—the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician–patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns 68(3):218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Quinn EM, Corrigan MA, McHugh SM, Murphy D, O’Mullane J, Hill AD et al (2013) Who’s talking about breast cancer? Analysis of daily breast cancer posts on the Internet. Breast 22(1):24–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gardiner R (2008) The transition from ‘informed patient’ care to ‘patient informed’ care. Stud Health Technol Inf 137:241–256Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Norman CD, Skinner HA (2006) EHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res 8:e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Sordi S, Kothari A, Kovacs T, Lo Torto F, Cigna E, Calabrese C, Ribuffo D (2019) Evaluation of prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with TiLoop Bra mesh for breast reconstruction: a prospective study on long-term and patient-reported BREAST-Q outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(1):1e–9eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, Lo Torto F, Barellini L, Sordi S, Gaggelli I, Roncella M, Calabrese C, Ribuffo D (2018) Subcutaneous expanders and synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction: long-term and patient reported BREAST-Q outcomes of a single center prospective study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS et al (2001) Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 285:2612–2621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Quinn EM, Corrigan MA, McHugh SM, Murphy D, O’Mullane J, Hill AD et al (2012) Breast cancer information on the internet: analysis of accessibility and accuracy. Breast 21:514–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Reichow B, Halpern JI, Steinhoff TB, Letsinger N, Naples A, Volkmar FR (2012) Characteristics and quality of autism websites. J Autism Dev Disord 42:1263–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cattelani L, Polotto S, Arcuri MF, Pedrazzi G, Linguadoca C, Bonati E (2018) One-step prepectoral breast reconstruction with dermal matrix-covered implant compared to submuscular implantation: functional and cost evaluation. Clin Breast Cancer 18(4):e703–e711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wikipedia. English language: geographical distribution. Accessed Nov 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Marcasciano
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • J. Frattaroli
    • 1
  • F. L. R. Mori
    • 1
  • F. Lo Torto
    • 1
  • P. Fioramonti
    • 1
  • E. Cavalieri
    • 1
  • J. Kaciulyte
    • 1
  • M. Greco
    • 3
  • D. Casella
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Ribuffo
    • 1
  1. 1.Policlinico Umberto I, Department of Surgery “P. Valdoni”, Unit of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Unità di Oncologia Chirurgica Ricostruttiva della Mammella, “Spedali Riuniti” di Livorno, Breast Unit Integrata di Livorno Cecina, Piombino ElbaAzienda USL Toscana Nord OvestLeghornItaly
  3. 3.Department of Plastic SurgeryUniversity of Catanzaro HospitalCatanzaroItaly

Personalised recommendations