Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Implant-Based Reconstruction with or Without Skin Reduction in Patients with Large Ptotic Breasts: A Case-Matched Analysis

Outcomes of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in the Ptotic and Non-Ptotic Breast with Staged-Immediate Reconstruction Timing and Pre-Pectoral, Direct-to-Implant Technique

Background and objectives Proven to be oncologically safe, nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) preserves the entire breast skin envelope and is associated with higher patient satisfaction. However, breast ptosis is a relative contraindication to NSM, limiting who it is offered to. Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction eliminates tissue expansion and shortens the reconstructive process but may be associated with mastectomy skin flap compromise after the placement of full-volume implants. Staged-immediate (SI) reconstruction initiates reconstruction two to three weeks after mastectomy. This timing and its use in DTI pre-pectoral (PP) breast reconstruction have not been reported. We aim to describe the outcomes of SI DTI PP reconstruction following NSM of ptotic and non-ptotic breasts. Methods Retrospective analysis utilizing descriptive statistics was completed evaluating patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with staged-immediate, pre-pectoral, direct-to-implant reconstruction by the senior author over a three-year period. Results and conclusions With SI timing, the majority of mastectomy-related problems occurred prior to implant placement, likely mitigating their effects on reconstruction following NSM, regardless of ptosis grade. Although a second procedure is needed for this reconstructive timing variation, over 50% of women achieved reconstruction completion at implant placement without further revision. These findings support the utility of SI timing in PP DTI reconstruction following NSM.

Mastopexy Strategies for Ptotic Breasts in Patients Choosing Autologous Reconstruction Following Prophylactic Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Autologous breast reconstruction is a reliable solution for many patients after mastectomy. While this technique represents a standardized approach in many patients, patients with ptotic breasts may require a combination of procedures to achieve an aesthetically pleasing result.

METHODS

We reviewed the mastectomy and free-flap breast reconstruction procedures performed at our institution from 2018 to 2022 in patients with ptotic breasts. The technique used to address the ptosis was put in focus as we present the four strategies used by our reconstructive surgeons. We performed two different one-stage and two different two-stage procedures. The difference between the two-stage procedures was the way the nipple areola complex was treated (inferior dermal pedicle or free skin graft). The difference between the one-stage procedures was the time of execution of the mastopexy/breast reduction (before or after the mastectomy and autologous breast reconstruction).

RESULTS

The one-stage procedure was performed with a free NAC in three patients and with a pedicled NAC in five patients. The two-stage procedure was performed in seven patients, with six of them undergoing mastopexy before and one patient undergoing mastopexy after the bilateral mastectomy and autologous reconstruction. No flap loss or total loss of the nipple areola complex occurred. Partial NAC loss was observed in five breasts in the single-stage group without any occurrence in the double-stage group.

CONCLUSIONS

While both one- and two-stage procedures were performed in a safe fashion with satisfactory results at our institution, larger trials are required to determine which procedure may yield the best possible outcomes. These outcomes should also include oncological safety and patient-reported outcomes.

Preoperative Assessment of the Breast Reconstruction Patient

Through a multidisciplinary approach, as well as, a nuanced appreciation of patient goals and setting appropriate expectations, breast reconstruction can significantly improve the quality of life following mastectomy. A thorough review of the patient medical and surgical history in addition to oncologic treatments will facilitate discussion and recommendations for an individualized shared decision-making reconstructive process. Alloplastic reconstruction, although a highly popular modality, has important limitations. On the contrary, autologous reconstruction is more flexible but requires more thorough consideration.