Early experience of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with node-positive breast cancer

Minimal Access vs Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Importance

While nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) for breast cancer was only performed using the open method in the past, its frequency using endoscopic and robotic surgical instruments has been increasing rapidly. However, there are limited studies regarding postoperative complications and the benefits and drawbacks of minimal access NSM (M-NSM) compared with conventional NSM (C-NSM).

Objective

To examine the differences in postoperative complications between C-NSM and M-NSM.

Design, Setting, Participants

This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study enrolling 1583 female patients aged 19 years and older with breast cancer who underwent NSM at 21 university hospitals in Korea between January 2018 and December 2020. Those with mastectomy without preserving the nipple-areolar complex (NAC), clinical or pathological malignancy in the NAC, inflammatory breast cancer, breast cancer infiltrating the chest wall or skin, metastatic breast cancer, or insufficient medical records were excluded. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to March 2024.

Exposures

M-NSM or C-NSM.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinicopathological factors and postoperative complications within 3 months of surgery were assessed. Statistical analyses, including logistic regression, were used to identify the factors associated with complications.

Results

There were 1356 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.47 [8.56] years) undergoing C-NSM and 227 (mean [SD] age, 45.41 [7.99] years) undergoing M-NSM (35 endoscopy assisted and 192 robot assisted). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding short- and long-term postoperative complications (<30 days: C-NSM, 465 of 1356 [34.29%] vs M-NSM, 73 of 227 [32.16%]; P = .53; <90 days: C-NSM, 525 of 1356 [38.72%] vs M-NSM, 73 of 227 [32.16%]; P = .06). Nipple-areolar complex necrosis was more common in the long term after C-NSM than M-NSM (C-NSM, 91 of 1356 [6.71%] vs M-NSM, 5 of 227 [2.20%]; P = .04). Wound infection occurred more frequently after M-NSM (C-NSM, 58 of 1356 [4.28%] vs M-NSM, 18 of 227 [7.93%]; P = .03). Postoperative seroma occurred more frequently after C-NSM (C-NSM, 193 of 1356 [14.23%] vs M-NSM, 21 of 227 [9.25%]; P = .04). Mild or severe breast ptosis was a significant risk factor for nipple or areolar necrosis (odds ratio [OR], 4.75; 95% CI, 1.66-13.60; P = .004 and OR, 8.78; 95% CI, 1.88-41.02; P = .006, respectively). Conversely, use of a midaxillary, anterior axillary, or axillary incision was associated with a lower risk of necrosis (OR for other incisions, 32.72; 95% CI, 2.11-508.36; P = .01). Necrosis occurred significantly less often in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction compared to other breast reconstructions (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.11-7.34; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

The similar complication rates between C-NSM and M-NSM demonstrates that both methods were equally safe, allowing the choice to be guided by patient preferences and specific needs.

Emerging Role of Robotic Surgery in the Breast

In recent years, there has been increased adoption of robotic technology in oncologic breast surgery, particularly with the use of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (r-NSM). Here we review the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery in breast procedures, and discuss the safety, limited oncologic outcomes, apparent advantages, and potential limitations of r-NSM compared to conventional open-NSM (c-NSM). Limited data suggests that robotic-assisted surgery offers smaller incisions and potential for improved cosmesis and ergonomic advantage when compared to c-NSM. Similar periprocedural complication rates are seen with r-NSM compared with c-NSM. Short-term oncologic follow-up is reassuring however, but remains early and continues to be investigated. The increased cost of r-NSM compared to open surgery and feasibility of widespread adoption of the procedure are important considerations that need to be evaluated. Randomized trials are currently ongoing to address the apparent advantages, oncologic outcomes, and cost/feasibility of robotic breast surgery.

Evaluating the utility of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with invasive breast cancer: a systematic review

Robot-assisted axillary lymph node dissection (RALND) has been proposed to improve surgical and oncological outcomes for patients with breast cancer. To perform a systematic review of current literature evaluating RALND in patients with invasive breast cancer. A systematic search was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies outlining outcomes following RALND were included. Two studies involving 92 patients were included in this review. Of these, 41 underwent RALND using the da Vinci© robotic system (44.57%), and 51 underwent conventional axillary lymph node dissection (CALND) (55.43%). There was no significant difference observed with respect to intra-operative blood loss or duration of procedure in those undergoing CALND and RALND (P > 0.050). One study reported a significant difference in lymphoedema rates in support of RALND (6.67% vs 26.67%, P = 0.038). Overall, data in relation to postoperative fat necrosis (10.00% vs 33.33%, P = 0.028), wound infection rates (3.33% vs. 20.00%, P = 0.044), and wound ≤ 40 mm in length (63.63% vs. 19.05%, P = 0.020) supported RALND. Oncological outcomes were only reported in one of the studies, which concluded that there was no local or metastatic recurrence in either group at 3-month follow-up. These provisional results support RALND as a safe alternative to CALND. Notwithstanding, the paucity of data limits the robustness of conclusions which may be drawn surrounding the adoption of RALND as the standard of care. Further high-quality studies are required to ratify these findings.