Atypical patterns in C-V flap nipple reconstruction: A customisation of the C-V flap

Nipple-areola complex reconstruction techniques: A literature review

Many techniques for nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction are described. Clarity is required on the currently available options. Since a complete list of all the techniques described until now is not available, a possibly comprehensive literature overview was carried out from 75 papers (years 1946-2015). The local flap was the most frequently described technique for the nipple reconstruction with no significant difference in complications' rate among the various types of techniques. Complications in nipple reconstruction were 46.9% after graft, 7.9% after local flap, and 5.3% in case of flaps with autologous graft/alloplastic/allograft augmentation, while complications in areola reconstruction were 10.1% after graft, and 1.6% after areola tattoo. Flaps appear to be more reliable than grafts in nipple reconstruction, while tattoo is thought to be safer than graft in areola reconstruction. The loss of projection, although considerable (45%-75%), had not significant impact on patients' satisfaction. Due to contraction, overcorrection of 25-50% of the desired result is advisory when adopting local flaps, in order to prevent loss of projection. The use of flaps with autologous graft/alloplastic/allograft augmentation (cartilage, fat, calcium hydroxylapatite, acellular dermal matrix, polymethylmethacrylate, biologic collagen) showed a minor loss of nipple projection but may expose to a relative increased number of postoperative flap necrosis.

Objective and subjective evaluation of donor-site morbidity after nipple sharing for nipple areola reconstruction

Nipple reconstruction is of importance in achieving the best possible aesthetic outcome after breast reconstruction. Nipple sharing is a common technique; this study focused on the potential morbidity at the donor nipple. Between 2008 and 2012, 26 patients underwent nipple sharing at our institution. The donor nipple was examined before and after the procedure (mean follow-up of 21 months). Sensitivity, projection, diameter, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. The sensitivity in the donor nipple decreased, albeit insignificantly, from 1.2 g/mm2 (0.8-1.6) to 1.8 g/mm2 (0.8-4.8) (p=0.054, n=26). The projection due to graft removal decreased from 8.0 mm (6.8-10.0) to 4.5 mm (4.0-5.0) (p=0.001). Of the patients, 88% were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the sensitivity and 89% with the symmetry between the donor and reconstructed nipple. At least 60% of the patients were "very satisfied" with all aesthetic outcome parameters (projection, appearance, naturalness, color, and shape). All patients would agree to undergo this procedure again, if necessary. Nipple sharing was associated with minimal morbidity at the donor nipple. The postoperative projection was adequate. Regardless of whether simultaneous mastopexy was performed, the loss of sensitivity was minimal and presumably imperceptible to the patient. By using no sutures after graft removal and letting the donor nipple heal spontaneously, scarring was minimized and the natural appearance and good sensitivity of the donor nipple were preserved.