The effects of body mass index on operative time and outcomes in nipple-sparing mastectomy

Is minimal-accessed (endoscopic- or robotic-assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy contraindicated for large breasts?

BACKGROUND

In the developmental stage of minimal-accessed nipple-sparing mastectomy (MA-NSM), selecting patients with small to medium-sized breasts was common for better cosmetic outcomes and oncological safety. However, the suitability of MA-NSM for large, ptotic breasts remained uncertain. This retrospective study aim to assess MA-NSM outcomes in patients with large breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients receiving conventional NSM (C-NSM) and MA-NSM from January 2011 to September 2022, at a single institution. We analyzed perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes based on breast specimen size, classified as small (≤300 g), medium (>300-450 g), large (>450-600 g), and very large (>600 g).

RESULTS

A total of 728 patients was enrolled. C-NSM was performed in 51% (371/728) of cases, while MA-NSM was done in 49% (357/728). The overall complication rate of MA-NSM was comparable to C-NSM (p = 0.573), but severe complications (Clavien-Dindo, CD III) was significantly reported more following C-NSM, regardless of breast size. During a median follow-up of 52 months, no significant difference in oncological outcomes was observed. Comparing MA-NSM and C-NSM outcomes in large-very large breasts (>450 g), MA-NSM demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p = 0.036) and lower incidence of severe complications (CD ≥ III) compared to C-NSM (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

MA-NSM is feasible for large breasts and offers benefits by reducing blood loss and decreasing the incidence of severe complications (CD ≥ III) in this patient group.

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) or skin flap ischemia necrosis post nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM)-analysis of clinicopathologic factors and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to identify clinicopathologic factors and/or preoperative MRI vascular patterns in the prediction of ischemia necrosis of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) or skin flap post nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 441 NSM procedures from January 2011 to September 2021 from the breast cancer database at our institution. The ischemia necrosis of NAC or skin flap was evaluated in correlation with clinicopathologic factors and types of skin incision. Patients who received NSM with preoperative MRI evaluation were further evaluated for the relationship between vascular pattern and the impact on ischemia necrosis of NAC or skin flap.

RESULTS

A total of 441 cases with NSM were enrolled in the current study, and the mean age of the cases was 49.1 ± 9.8 years old. A total of 41 (9.3%) NSM procedures were found to have NAC ischemia/necrosis. Risk factors were evaluated of which old age, large mastectomy specimen weight (> 450 g), and peri-areola incision were identified as predictors of NAC necrosis. Two-hundred seventy NSM procedures also received preoperative MRI, and the blood supply pattern was 18% single-vessel type and 82% double-vessel pattern. There were no correlations between MRI blood supply patterns or types of skin flap incisions with ischemia necrosis of NAC. There were also no correlations between blood loss and the pattern or size of the blood vessel.

CONCLUSION

Factors such as the type of skin incision, age, and size of mastectomy weight played an important role in determining ischemia necrosis of NAC; however, MRI vascular (single or dual vessel supply) pattern was not a significant predictive factor.

Ischemic Complications After Bilateral Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Implant-based Reconstruction: A Critical Analysis

PURPOSE

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has a higher incidence of mastectomy skin flap necrosis (MSFN) than skin-sparing mastectomy. The purpose of this study is to analyze predisposing factors for nipple and skin necrosis after bilateral NSM with immediate implant reconstruction.

METHODS

Sixty-two consecutive patients (124 breasts) from a single breast/plastic surgeon underwent bilateral NSM with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction were included. Factors influencing MSFN were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 45.7 years, and mean body mass index was 22.9. Reconstructive methods were as follows: tissue expander (TE), 76 (61.3%); and direct to implant, 48 (38.7%). Mastectomy skin flap necrosis occurred in 39 (31.5%) breasts, nipple necrosis 38 and skin flap necrosis 19. Thirty-seven breasts healed uneventfully, and 2 (1.6%) required reoperation. Cancer pathology, mastectomy weight greater than 279 g, TE reconstruction, and nipple-notch (N-N) distance greater than 23 cm were predictive of nipple necrosis on univariate analysis. The mean mastectomy weight (380.1 g vs 220.7 g, P < 0.0001), N-N distance greater than 23 cm (30 vs 0, P < 0.0001), and mean implant size (490 cm3 vs 373 cm3, P < 0.0001) were greater in the TE group. On logistic regression model controlling for all significant variables, predictors of MSFN were as follows: diagnosis of cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-8.03; P = 0.006), TE reconstruction (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.03-8.03; P = 0.04), and N-N distance (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.66; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Mastectomy skin flap necrosis after NSM and implant reconstruction is common. In this series, only 2 (1.6%) cases required surgical intervention with no implant loss. Treatment of breast cancer, TE reconstruction, and increasing N-N notch distance were positive predictors of MSFN.

Factors Affecting Total Operating Time in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy With and Without Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Operating room (OR) time varies significantly in patients undergoing mastectomy. We sought to determine factors influencing OR time such that more accurate predictions could be made.

METHODS

Records of patients undergoing mastectomy at our institution between January 2010 and June 2018 were reviewed. Operating Room time was defined as time from incision to dressing. Nonparametric analyses were performed to determine factors associated with OR time. A predictive model using linear regression was created on a training set and evaluated in a separate testing set.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 1008 female patients who underwent either unilateral or bilateral mastectomy (BM), with or without reconstruction, and with or without concomitant axillary lymph node staging at our institution. The median OR time was 4.67 hours (range; .70-16.35 hours). To create a predictive model, we divided our cohort into a training set of 504 patients and a testing set of 504 patients. Across the training set, body mass index (BMI), BM, nonconventional mastectomies, intraoperative frozen sections, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and reconstruction were associated with longer OR times on linear regression. A model generated from these findings on the training set was run on the testing set (Pearson correlation = .743 for predicted vs. actual OR times, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A number of preoperative factors such as BMI, unilateral vs. BM, type of mastectomy and reconstruction, use of intraoperative frozen sections, and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy can influence OR times. Accurate predictions can be made using a simple model incorporating these factors.