Robotic versus conventional nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate gel implant breast reconstruction in the management of breast cancer- A case control comparison study with analysis of clinical outcome, medical cost, and patient-reported cosmetic results

Postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthesis breast reconstruction in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor worldwide, and mastectomy remains the primary strategy for treating early stage breast cancer. However, the complication rates, surgical variables, and oncologic safety of minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (MINSM) have not been fully addressed. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared MINSM with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM), both followed by Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction (PBR). The main outcomes observed included overall complications, (Grade III) complications, skin and nipple necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, and oncologic safety (positive margins and recurrence). Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction. Binary and continuous variables were compared using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 10 studies involving 2,166 patients were included. There were no statistically significant differences between MINSM and CNSM in terms of skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, or oncologic safety. However, MINSM significantly reduced overall complications (OR = 0. 74, 95% CI [0. 58, 0. 94], p = 0. 01) and (Grade III) complications (OR = 0. 47, 95% CI [0. 31, 0. 71], p = 0. 0003). Nipple necrosis events were also significantly reduced in the MINSM group (OR = 0. 49, 95% CI [0. 30, 0. 80], p = 0. 005). Patient satisfaction improved notably in the MINSM group. Additionally, compared with the CNSM group, the MINSM group had longer operating times (MD = 46. 88, 95% CI [19. 55, 74. 21], p = 0. 0008) and hospital stays (MD = 1. 39, 95% CI [0. 65, 2. 12], p < 0. 001), while intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced (MD = -29. 05, 95% CI [-36. 20, -21. 90], p < 0. 001). Compared with CNSM, MINSM offers advantages in reducing complications and intraoperative blood loss, as well as improving aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. Therefore, MINSM may become a viable option for breast surgery. Nevertheless, a long-term evaluation of the oncologic safety of this approach is necessary to ensure its efficacy and safety for patients.

The emerging role of robotics in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The role of robotics has grown exponentially. There is an active interest amongst practitioners in the transferability of the potential benefits into plastic and reconstructive surgery; however, many plastic surgeons report lack of widespread implementation, training, or clinical exposure. We report the current evidence base, and surgical opportunities, alongside key barriers, and limitations to overcome, to develop the use of robotics within the field. This systematic review of PubMed, Medline, and Embase has been conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024524237). Preclinical, educational, and clinical articles were included, within the scope of plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2, 181, articles were screened; 176 articles met the inclusion criteria across lymph node dissection, flap and microsurgery, vaginoplasty, craniofacial reconstruction, abdominal wall reconstruction and transoral robotic surgery (TOR). A number of benefits have been reported including technical advantages such as better visualisation, improved precision and accuracy, and tremor reduction. Patient benefits include lower rate of complications and quicker recovery; however, there is a longer operative duration in some categories. Cost presents a significant barrier to implementation. Robotic surgery presents an exciting opportunity to improve patient outcomes and surgical ease of use, with feasibility for many subspecialities demonstrated in this review. However, further higher quality comparative research with careful case selection, which is adequately powered, as well as the inclusion of cost-analysis, is necessary to fully understand the true benefit for patient care, and justification for resource utilisation.

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.

Scarless totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: Surgical technique, preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-reported outcome in 125 breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Minimal-access (endoscopic or robotic-assisted) breast surgery has been increasingly performed and shown better cosmetic results. However, location of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) for systemic treatment at anterior chest may compromise its aesthetic benefits. Therefore, we proposed a new scarless technique for TIVAP implantation, and reported the preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-surveyed outcome.

METHODS

Surgical technique of the new "scarless" TIVAP implantation was proposed. Patients receiving this procedure in a single institution were included. The preliminary results of the scarless TIVAP implantation, learning curve, and patient-reported outcome were analyzed and reported.

RESULTS

A total of 125 breast cancer patients received scarless TIVAP procedures were enrolled. The primary success rate of the scarless TIVAP implantation was 100%. Mean operative time was 46 ± 14 min. Mean amount of blood loss was 8.5 ± 3.2 ml. The cumulative sum plot showed operation time significantly decreased after 24th cases. In the initial learning phase, the mean operative time was 55 ± 17 min, and decreased to 43 ± 12 min in the later mature phase (P = 0.003). There were 5 (4%) complications detected, which included 1 (0.8%) seroma formation, 2 (1.6%) revisions, and 2 (1.6%) unplanned explantations. From patients-evaluated questionnaires, more than 90% of responders were satisfied with aesthetic results, experience during surgery, and application of scarless TIVAP for systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The scarless TIVAP implantation is a safe & reliable procedure with high patients-reported aesthetic satisfaction, and could be an alternative TIVAP procedure for patients requiring chemotherapy and desiring a less noticeable scar.

Reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: an improvement of conventional minimal access breast surgery

Background

Our center proposes a new technique that effectively provides space to broaden the surgical field of view and overcomes the limitations of endoscopy-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) by changing the dissection sequence and combining it with air inflation. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the new technique designated "reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) with subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR)" and the conventional E-NSM (C-E-NSM) with SBR.

Method

All patients undergoing E-NSM with SBR at our breast center between April 2017 and December 2022 were included in this study. The cohort was divided into the C-E-NSM group and the R-E-NSM group. The operation time, anesthesia time, medical cost, complications, cosmetic outcomes, and oncological safety were compared.

Results

Twenty-six and seventy-nine consecutive patients were included in the C-E-NSM and R-E-NSM groups, with average ages of 36.9 ± 7.0 years and 39.7 ± 8.4 years (P=0.128). Patients in the R-E-NSM group had significantly shorter operation time (204.6 ± 59.2 vs. 318.9 ± 75.5 minutes, p<0.001) and anesthesia time (279.4 ± 83.9 vs. 408.9 ± 87.4 minutes, p<0.001) and decreased medical costs [5063.4 (4439.6-6532.3) vs. 6404.2 (5152.5-7981.5), USD, p=0.001] and increase SCAR-Q scores (77.2 ± 17.1 vs. 68.8 ± 8.7, P=0.002) compared to the C-E-NSM group. Although trends increased in both the excellent rate of Ueda scores (53.8% vs. 42.3%, P = 0.144), excellent rate of Harris scores (44.0% vs. 63.1%, P=0.102), and decreased surgical complications (7.6% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.135) were observed in the R-E-NSM group, the differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusion

R-E-NSM improves cosmetic outcomes and efficiency of C-E-NSM, reduces medical costs, and has a trend of lower surgical complications while maintaining the safety of oncology. It is a safe and feasible option for oncological procedures that deserves to be promoted and widely adopted in practice.

Patient-reported outcomes of mesh in minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) immediate subpectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although there is increasing interest in minimally invasive prosthesis breast reconstruction (PBR), whether meshes application in minimally invasive PBR can improve complications and cosmetic effects remains controversial. The author retrospectively analyzed postoperative complications and evaluated patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in minimally invasive PBR with and without mesh.

METHODS

This study enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) followed by PBR. We used the TiLOOP bra for the mesh-assisted procedure. Patient demographics and postoperative complications data were compared between the procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Breast-Q.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients underwent 160 minimally invasive NSM-PBR (with mesh, n = 64; without, n = 94). Postoperative complications were comparable in the mesh-assisted (5 [7.7%]) and non-mesh-assisted (5 [5.3%]) groups (p = 0.533). The most common complication in non-mesh-assisted group was infection, with four (4.2%) cases. In mesh-assisted group, implant exposure occurred in two (3.1%) patients. Removal of prosthesis was uncommon, with two (3.1%) and three (3.2%) cases in the mesh-assisted and non-mesh groups, respectively (p = 0.977). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was completed by 52 (81.3%) patients in the mesh-assisted group and 68 (72.3%) in the non-mesh-assisted group. Comparing the non-mesh group, patients in mesh-assisted group had improved scores on the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with breast (66.0) (p < 0.05), Physical Well-being (80.0), and Sexual Well-being (56.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-assisted minimally invasive NSM-PBR has good aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the mesh-assisted and non-mesh-assisted groups.

Postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of robotic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, with remarkable advances in early diagnosis, systemic treatments, and surgical techniques. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been trialled; however, the complication rates, surgical outcomes, and oncological safety of this approach remain obscure.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted from conception until September 2022. Studies examining complications and operative variables where robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy was compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy were included. Primary study outcomes were complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III complications, skin or nipple necrosis, seroma, haematoma, infection, implant loss, and wound dehiscence) and oncological safety (recurrence and positive margins). The secondary outcomes included operative variables, length of stay, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, and aesthetic outcome.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies of overall fair quality, involving 1674 patients, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Grade 3 complications were reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy without statistical significance (OR 0.60 (95 per cent c.i. 0.35 to 1.05)). Nipple necrosis was significantly reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (OR 0.54 (95 per cent c.i. 0.30 to 0.96); P = 0.03; I2 = 15 per cent). Operating time (mean difference +58.81 min (95 per cent c.i. +28.19 to +89.44 min); P = 0.0002) and length of stay (mean difference +1.23 days (95 per cent c.i. +0.64 to +1.81 days); P < 0.0001) were significantly increased in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, whereas the opposite was true for blood loss (mean difference -53.18 ml (95 per cent c.i. -71.78 to -34.58 ml); P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Whilst still in its infancy, robotic breast surgery may become a viable option in breast surgery. Nonetheless, the oncological safety of this approach requires robust assessment.

Robotic Versus Conventional or Endoscopic-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Prospectively Designed Multicenter Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, and Patient-reported Outcomes (RCENSM-P)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of minimal access and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM). The secondary outcomes investigated included medical costs and oncological safety.

BACKGROUND

Minimal-access NSM has been increasingly applied in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. However, prospective multicenter trials comparing robotic-assisted NSM (R-NSM) versus C-NSM or endoscopic-assisted NSM (E-NSM) are lacking.

METHODS

A prospectively designed 3-arm multicenter, nonrandomized trial (NCT04037852) was conducted from October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, to compare R-NSM with C-NSM or E-NSM.

RESULTS

A total of 73 R-NSM, 74 C-NSM, and 84 E-NSM procedures were enrolled. The median wound length and operation time of C-NSM was (9 cm, 175 minutes), (4 cm, and 195 minutes) in R-NSM, and (4 cm and 222 minutes) in E-NSM. Complications were comparable among the groups. Better wound healing was observed in the minimal-access NSM group. The R-NSM procedure was 4000 and 2600 United States Dollars more expensive than C-NSM and E-NSM, respectively. Wound/scar and postoperative acute pain evaluation favored the use of minimal access NSM over C-NSM. Quality of life in terms of chronic breast/chest pain, mobility, and range of motion of the upper extremity showed no significant differences. The preliminary oncologic results showed no differences among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

R-NSM or E-NSM is a safe alternative if compared with C-NSM in terms of perioperative morbidities, especially with better wound healing. The advantage of minimal access groups was higher wound-related satisfaction. Higher costs remain one of the major limiting factors in the widespread adoption of R-NSM.

A systematic review of robotic breast surgery versus open surgery

Robotic-assisted breast surgery (RABS) is controversial. We systematically reviewed the evidence about RABS, comparing it to open conventional breast surgery (CBS). Following prospective registration (osf.io/97ewt), a search was performed in January 2023, without time or language restrictions, through bibliographic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Trip database and CDSR) and grey literature. Quality was assessed in duplicate using Qualsyst criteria (score range 0.0-1.0); reviewer agreement was 98%. The 16 selected studies (total patients: 334,804) had overall high quality (mean score 0.82; range 0.68-0.91). Nine of 16 (56.3%) were cohort studies, 2/16 (12.5%) RCTs, and 5/16 (31.3%) case-control studies. Taking p < 0.05 as the significance threshold, RABS versus CBS was better in aesthetic results and patient satisfaction (10/11 studies; 90%), was surgically costly (4/4 studies; 100%), time-consuming (9/13 studies; 69%), and less painful in the first 6-24 h (2/2 studies; 100%) and without statistically significant differences in complication rates (10/12 studies; 83%) or short-term oncological outcomes (10/10 studies; 100%). Surgical time could be dramatically reduced by training surgical teams, reaching no significant differences between approaches (p = 0.120). RABS was shown to be feasible and safe. The advantages of RABS and long-term outcomes need further research.

Single-port three-dimensional (3D) endoscopic-assisted breast surgery-preliminary results and patient-reported satisfaction in 145 breast cancer and gynecomastia cases

BACKGROUND

Minimal-accessed (robotic and endoscopic) breast cancer surgery is increasingly performed due to better cosmetic results and acceptable oncological outcomes. This study aims to demonstrate the clinical safety and patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction of single-port three-dimensional endoscopic-assisted breast surgery (S-P 3D EABS), which is our new endoscopic surgical innovation, in both malignant and benign breast conditions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent S-P 3D EABS from 1 August 2018 to 31 July 2022 in a single institution were enrolled. Clinical outcomes of this procedure were retrospectively reviewed, and the patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction was evaluated by a questionnaire and reported herein.

RESULTS

During the study period, 145 patients underwent 164 procedures of S-P 3D EABS. One hundred fifty (91.5%) procedures were endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (S-P 3D E-NSM; 117 therapeutic procedures for breast cancer, 13 prophylactic mastectomies, 20 procedures for gynecomastia). Fourteen (8.5%) procedures of endoscopic-assisted breast-conserving surgery (S-P 3D E-BCS) were performed (12 S-P 3D E-BCS, 2 S-P 3D E-BCS with 3D videoscope-assisted partial breast reconstruction, which was 1 case of latissimus dorsi flap and 1 case of omental flap). The mean operative time was 245 ± 110 min in S-P 3D E-NSM and 260 ± 142 min in S-P 3D E-BCS. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 49.7 ± 46.9 ml in S-P 3D E-NSM and 32.8 ± 17.5 ml in S-P 3D E-BCS. Subnipple biopsy showed positive malignancy in 3 (2.6%) S-P 3D E-NSM patients. None of the S-P 3D E-BCS patients found margin involvement; however, 3 (2.6%) reported margin involvement in S-P 3D E-NSM patients. Thirty-two complications were found (24.6%): 7 (5.3%) transient nipple-areolar complex (NAC) ischemia, 7 (5.3%) partial NAC necrosis, 1 (0.7%) total NAC necrosis, and 1 (0.7%) implant loss. During the mean follow-up time of 34 months, there were 2 (1.5%) patients with locoregional recurrence, 9 (6.9%) distant metastasis, and 2 (1.5%) mortality. 78.6% (77/98) of patients answering the cosmetic-evaluated questionnaire reported good and excellent overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

S-P 3D EABS is a novel surgical innovation, which is able to perform safely in either malignant or benign breast conditions and offer promising cosmetic results.

Robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap: Our initial experience

BACKGROUND

This study reports the preliminary results of da Vinci robot XI robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy immediate breast reconstruction (R-NSMIBR) with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap.

METHODS

A total of 15 patients who underwent R-NSMIBR with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap surgery for breast cancer between September 2022 and November 2022 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean total operative time for R-NSMIBR was 361.9 ± 77.0 min. As the learning curve increased, the robot arm docking time decreased rapidly from the initial 25-10 min. Average total blood loss was 27.8 ± 10.7 mL and posterior surgical margin positivity rate was 0%. Perioperative complications and local recurrences or deaths were not observed at a mean follow-up of 3 ± 1 month 15 patients were satisfied with postoperative aesthetic results.

CONCLUSIONS

R-NSMIBR with a gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap could be a new therapeutic option for breast reconstruction.

Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple/skin-sparing mastectomy followed by subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Technique, clinical outcomes, and aesthetic results from 88 preliminary procedures

BACKGROUND

Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy overcomes the limitations of conventional endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy application. We introduce this technique and report the preliminary results of this study.

METHODS

Patients who received single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy from May 2020 to May 2022 were enrolled from a single institution. Data were analyzed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this technique. Patient-reported and surgeon-reported cosmetic outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 68 patients who underwent 88 single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy combined with subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction were enrolled in the current study. The overall complication rate was 10.3%. In total, 2.9% of patients suffered from major complications, and 5 (7.4%) experienced minor complications. Only 1 patient experienced partial nipple-areola complex necrosis. During a median follow-up time of 24 months, the locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis rate was both 1.6%. In the surgeon-reported cosmetic results, 92.1% of patients achieved good or excellent results. The mean SCAR-Q scores were 82.07 ± 8.86, and 85.3% evaluated their breasts as good or excellent. The mean overall cost was 5,670.4 ± 1,351.3 USD. The total mean operation time and maturity-stage mean operation time were 234.3 ± 80.4 and 172.55 ± 41.29 min, respectively. According to cumulative sum plot analysis, approximately 18 cases were needed for surgeons to decrease their operation time significantly and complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe, less expensive, and efficient surgical technique with reliable intermediate-term oncologic safety. For suitable candidates, the technique with subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction can provide a good cosmetic outcome.

Direct-to-implant versus autologous tissue transfer: A meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The effect of immediate implant and autologous breast reconstruction on complication rates has been studied extensively; however, the patient-reported outcomes for these procedures during immediate, one-stage reconstruction has yet to be comprehensively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the patient-reported outcomes for immediate implant reconstruction with those associated with immediate autologous reconstruction to determine the advantages and disadvantages for each modality from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed between 2010 and 2021 was performed, and 21 studies containing patient-reported outcomes were selected for the analysis. A meta-analysis of patient-reported outcome scores was performed separately for immediate breast reconstruction using autologous tissue transfer and synthetic implants.

RESULTS

Nineteen manuscripts were included, representing data on a total of 1342 patients across all studies. The pooled mean of patients' satisfaction with their breasts was 70.7 (95% CI, 69.4-72.0) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 68.5 (95% CI, 67.1-69.9) after immediate implant reconstruction, showing a statistically significant difference in outcomes (p < 0.05). The pooled mean of patients' sexual well-being was 59.3 (95% CI, 57.8-60.8) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 62.8 (95% CI, 60.7-64.8) after immediate implant reconstruction (p < 0.01). The pooled mean of patients' satisfaction with their outcome was 78.8 (95% CI, 76.2-81.3) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 82.3 (95% CI, 80.4-84.1) after immediate implant reconstruction (p < 0.05). The results of each meta-analysis were summarized on forest plots depicting the distribution of patient-reported outcome scores from each study.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate reconstruction with implants may have a similar or greater capacity to achieve patient satisfaction and improve patients' QoL compared to those associated with immediate reconstruction with autologous tissue transfer when both procedures are available.

Controversies and strengths of robot-assisted mastectomy

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is used to improve cosmetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety in patients with early breast cancer; however, NSM requires a higher level of skill and workload than mastectomy and is associated with long, visible scars. Robotic surgical systems reduce surgeon workload and facilitate precise surgery. Considering the increasing support of robot-assisted NSM (RNSM), this paper aims to discuss the current controversies based on the research findings reported thus far. There are four concerns regarding RNSM; increased cost, oncological outcomes, the level of experience and skill, and standardization. It should be noted that RNSM is not a surgery performed on all patients but rather a procedure performed on selected patients who meet specific indications. A large-scale randomized clinical trial comparing robotic and conventional NSM has recently begun in Korea; therefore, it is necessary to wait for these results for more insight into oncological outcomes. Although the level of experience and skill required for robotic mastectomy may not be easily achieved by all surgeons, the learning curve for RNSM appears manageable and can be overcome with appropriate training and practice. Training programs and standardization efforts will help improve the overall quality of RNSM. There are some advantages to RNSM. The robotic system provides improved precision and accuracy, helping remove breast tissue more effectively. RNSM has advantages such as smaller scars, less blood loss, and a lower rate of surgical complications. Patients who undergo RNSM report better quality of life.

Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Evaluating Residual Breast Tissue After Robotic-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Women With Early Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Prospective studies on postoperative residual breast tissue (RBT) after robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) for breast cancer are limited. RBT presents an unknown risk of local recurrence or the development of new cancer after curative or risk-reducing mastectomies. This study investigated the technical feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate RBT after R-NSM in women with breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective pilot study, 105 patients, who underwent R-NSM for breast cancer at Changhua Christian Hospital between March 2017 and May 2022, were subjected to postoperative breast MRI to evaluate the presence and location of RBT. The postoperative MRI scans of 43 patients (age, 47.8 ± 8.5 years), with existing preoperative MRI scans, were evaluated for the presence and location of RBT. In total, 54 R-NSM procedures were performed. In parallel, we reviewed the literature on RBT after nipple-sparing mastectomy, considering its prevalence.

RESULTS

RBT was detected in 7 (13.0%) of the 54 mastectomies (6 of the 48 therapeutic mastectomies and 1 of the 6 prophylactic mastectomies). The most common location for RBT was behind the nipple-areolar complex (5 of 7 [71.4%]). Another RBT was found in the upper inner quadrant (2 of 7 [28.6%]). Among the six patients who underwent RBT after therapeutic mastectomies, one patient developed a local recurrence of the skin flap. The other five patients with RBT after therapeutic mastectomies remained disease-free.

CONCLUSION

R-NSM, a surgical innovation, does not seem to increase the prevalence of RBT, and breast MRI showed feasibility as a noninvasive imaging tool for evaluating the presence and location of RBT.

Mastectomy with Reconstruction Including Robotic Endoscopic Surgery (MARRES): a prospective cohort study of the Korea Robot-Endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) and Korean Breast Cancer Study Group (KBCSG)

BACKGROUND

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) has emerged as a new treatment option for breast cancer and risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) for women who have a high risk of pathogenic variants. Even though several studies have reported that RNSM is a feasible procedure, some argue that it should only be performed by specialized surgeons, and data on oncologic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are limited. Recently, the United States Food and Drug Administration and several surgeons warned that robotic breast surgery should be performed only by specialized surgeons and recommended that the benefits, risks, and alternatives of all available treatment options be discussed with patients so they can make informed treatment decisions. The Korea Robot-Endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) has been established to evaluate, standardize, and teach this state-of-the-art procedure. We have designed a multicenter prospective cohort study entitled Mastectomy with Reconstruction Including Robot Endoscopic Surgery (MARRES) to report surgical, PRO, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

MARRES is a multi-institution cohort study prospectively collecting data from patients undergoing mastectomy and reconstruction. The patient inclusion criteria are adult women older than 19 with breast cancer or a high risk of breast cancer (patients with BRCA1/2, TP53, PALB2 mutations, etc.), who have scheduled therapeutic or RRM and want immediate reconstruction. Surgical outcomes, including pre- and postoperative photos, oncologic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and PRO, are collected. The primary endpoints are postoperative complication rates within 30 postoperative days and the Clavien-Dindo grade of postoperative complications within 180 postoperative days. The secondary endpoints are 5-year postoperative recurrence-free survival and cancer incidence rate (for those who underwent RRM), patient satisfaction with reconstruction expectations preoperative (baseline) and results within 6 to 12 postoperative months, surgeon satisfaction with postoperative results in 6 postoperative months, and cost-effectiveness of the definitive surgery. Patient recruitment will be completed in April 2025, and the target number of enrolled patients is 2000.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence about the surgical outcomes, oncologic outcomes, and patient satisfaction with RNSM and endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), compared with conventional NSM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04585074. Registered April 8, 2020.

Robot-assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy: Recent Advancements and Ongoing Controversies

Purpose of review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent technical advancements in RNSM, describe the ongoing teaching programs, and discuss the ongoing controversies.

Recent findings

Robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RNSM) is the newest addition to the armamentarium of surgical techniques for patients who require a mastectomy. The potential benefits of using the da Vinci® Robotic Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) are the small 3D camera and lighting offering superior visualization, the Endowrist robotic instruments offering greater range of motion, and surgeon being at a seated position at the console rendering a more ergonomic operating position.

Summary

RNSM can potentially help overcome the technical difficulties of performing a conventional NSM. Further studies are needed to elucidate the oncologic safety and cost-effectiveness of RNSM.

Modern Innovations in Breast Surgery: Robotic Breast Surgery and Robotic Breast Reconstruction

Robotic surgery has a history of applications in multiple surgical areas and has been applied in plastic surgery over the past decade. Robotic surgery allows for minimal access incisions and decreased donor site morbidity in breast extirpative surgery, breast reconstruction, and lymphedema surgery. Although a learning curve exists for the use of this technology, it can be safely applied with careful preoperative planning. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy may be combined with either robotic alloplastic or robotic autologous reconstruction in the appropriate patient.

Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeon performance and impact on breast reconstructions: Clinical outcomes, learning curve, and patients' satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Compared to mastectomy alone, the addition of breast reconstruction could improve quality of life and it is usually performed by two-team approach, which consisted of both breast surgeons and plastic surgeons. This study aims to illustrate the positive impacts of the dual-trained oncoplastic reconstructive breast surgeon (ORBS) and reveal the factors influencing reconstruction rates.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 542 breast cancer patients who undergone mastectomy with reconstruction performed by a particular ORBS between January 2011 and December 2021 at a single institution. Clinical and oncological outcomes, impact of case accumulation on performance and patient-reported aesthetic satisfactions were analyzed and reported. Furthermore, in this study 1851 breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy combined with or without breast reconstructions, which included 542 performed by ORBS, were reviewed to identify factors affecting breast reconstructions.

RESULTS

Among the 524 breast reconstructions performed by the ORBS, 73.6% were gel implant reconstructions, 2.7% were tissue expanders, 19.5% were transverse rectus abdominal myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, 2.7% were latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps, 0.8% were omentum flaps, and 0.8% involved LD flaps and implants. There was no total flap loss in the 124 autologous reconstructions, and the implant loss rate was 1.2% (5/403). Patient-reported aesthetic evaluations showed that 95% of the patients were satisfied. As the ORBS's accumulated case experiences, the implant loss rate decreased, and the overall satisfaction rate increased. According to the cumulative sum plot learning curve analysis, it took 58 procedures for the ORBS to shorten the operative time. In multivariate analysis, younger age, MRI, nipple sparing mastectomy, ORBS, and high-volume surgeon were factors related to breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrated that a breast surgeon after adequate training could become an ORBS and perform mastectomies with various types of breast reconstruction with acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes for breast cancer patients. ORBSs could increase breast reconstruction rates, which remain low worldwide.

Clinical outcomes following robotic versus conventional DIEP flap in breast reconstruction: A retrospective matched study

Background

A robotic deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap created through a totally extraperitoneal approach minimizes violation of the donor site, which may lead to postoperative pain reduction and rapid recovery. The authors compared the clinical outcomes of robotic and conventional DIEP flap breast reconstructions.

Methods

Data from consecutive patients who underwent mastectomy with DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction between July 2017 and January 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into robotic and conventional DIEP groups, and the two groups were matched using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. They were compared based on the reconstruction time, drainage amount, postoperative pain, rescue analgesics, hospital stay, complications, and BREAST-Q scores.

Results

After matching, a dataset of 207 patients was formed, including 21 patients in the robotic DIEP group and 186 patients in the conventional DIEP group. The mean reconstruction time was longer in the robotic DIEP group than in the conventional DIEP group (P<0.001). In the robotic group, pain intensity during the postoperative 6–24 hours was significantly reduced (P=0.001) with less use of fentanyl (P=0.003) compared to the conventional DIEP group. The mean length of hospital stay for the robotic DIEP group was shorter than that for conventional DIEP (P=0.002). BREAST-Q scores indicated a higher level of the abdominal physical well-being domain in the robotic group (P=0.020). Complication rates were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions

This study suggests that a robotic DIEP flap offers enhanced postoperative recovery, accompanied by a reduction in postoperative pain and hospital stay.

Efficacy of the Whole-Course Case Management Model on Compliance and Satisfaction of Breast Cancer Patients with Whole-Course Standardized Treatment

Objective

To explore the influence of the whole-course case management model on the compliance and satisfaction of breast cancer patients with the whole-course standardized treatment.

Methods

Eighty breast cancer patients admitted to our hospital between April 2020 and June 2021 were assigned to receive either conventional nursing (routine group, n = 40) or whole-process case management (experimental group, n = 40) according to different nursing methods. Outcome measures included self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) scores, self-rating depression scale (SDS) scores, adverse reactions, treatment compliance, and nursing satisfaction.

Results

After nursing, the SAS and SDS scores of the experimental group were significantly lower than those of the routine group (P < 0.05). The whole case management mode was associated with a significantly lower incidence of adverse reactions versus routine nursing (P < 0.05). The whole case management resulted in higher compliance of patients versus routine nursing (P < 0.05). The experimental group had a significantly higher nursing satisfaction versus the routine group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The whole-process case management mitigates patients' negative emotions, strengthens their treatment compliance, lowers the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions, and improves nursing satisfaction, which may provide a viable nursing alternative for patients with breast cancer.

Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic and Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction: International Multicenter Pooled Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) has been developed to reduce conspicuous scar and increase the quality of life in women. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic outcomes of RNSM with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This international multicenter, pooled analysis of individual patient-level data enrolled a total of 755 procedures in 659 women (609 had breast cancer and 50 underwent risk-reducing mastectomy) who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with IBR. Surgical and oncologic outcomes, including 30-days postoperative (POD 30d) complication rate, nipple necrosis rate, grade of Clavien-Dindo classification, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were evaluated. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed to adjust for confounding factors.

RESULTS

The median age of both the RNSM and CNSM groups was 45 years. The RNSM group had lower body mass index (BMI) and a higher proportion of benign disease compared with the CNSM group. POD 30d complications and postoperative complication grade III rates were lower in the RNSM group than in the CNSM group (p < 0.05). The nipple necrosis rate was 2.2% and 7.8% for RNSM and CNSM, respectively (p = 0.002). After propensity score matching, significantly lower rates of POD 30d complications, nipple necrosis, and postoperative complication grade III occurred in the RNSM group than in the CNSM group (all p < 0.05). Oncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RNSM can provide better cosmetic results with favorable surgical and oncologic outcomes for women with early breast cancer or BRCA mutation.

The Application of Whole-Process Case Management in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Objective

To explore the application of professional whole-process case management during nursing in patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

Methods

This study recruited 60 patients with triple-negative breast cancer who were diagnosed and treated at Department of Breast Surgery in our hospital assessed for eligibility between June 2018 and June 2020, and we assigned them at a ratio of 1 : 1 via the random number table method to receive either general nursing (control group) or professional whole-process case management plus general nursing (observation group). We analyzed and evaluated the hospitalization, the indwelling time of drainage tube, complications, recovery, quality of life, posttraumatic growth, and nursing satisfaction between these two groups at registration, discharge, and the sixth month after surgery, respectively.

Results

Professional whole-process case management achieved a shorter duration of drainage tube placement and hospitalization and a lower incidence of postoperative complications versus general nursing (P < 0.05). Moreover, the observation group had got better recovery (P < 0.05) and a better quality of life at discharge and 6 months after surgery (P < 0.05). Professional whole-process case management obtained higher scores of posttraumatic growth and higher nursing satisfaction versus general nursing (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Whole-process case management promotes the postoperative recovery of patients with triple-negative breast cancer and shortens the duration of drainage tube indwelling and hospitalization, which lowers the incidence of postoperative complications, improves their quality of life, and enhances nursing satisfaction.

Safety and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive (Laparoscopic/Robotic-Assisted) Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Combined with Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic-assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy combined with prosthesis breast reconstruction (NSM-PBR) is associated with smaller scars and greater patient satisfaction. However, the oncological safety of minimally invasive NSM-PBR remains controversial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction between 1 January 2006 and 20 February 2021. Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, operation information, postoperative complications, and survival outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

In all, 292 patients underwent minimally invasive NSM-PBR and 205 underwent open NSM-PBR for breast cancer. In the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group, 268 (91.8%) patients underwent laparoscopy and 24 (8.2%) patients underwent robot-assisted NSM-PBR. Mean operation time in the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group was significantly longer than that in the open NSM-PBR group (P = 0.023). Mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group (P < 0.05). There was no significant between-group difference in total complications. Similarly, there were no significant between-group differences in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local recurrence rate (P = 0.450, P = 0.613, and P = 0.679, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The complication, recurrence, and mortality rates in minimally invasive NSM-PBR group were comparable to those in open NSM-PBR group. Our preliminary results are encouraging and suggest that minimally invasive NSM-PBR affords good cosmetic results and its oncological safety is comparable to that of open surgery.

Minimal Access (Endoscopic and Robotic) Breast Surgery in the Surgical Treatment of Early Breast Cancer-Trend and Clinical Outcome From a Single-Surgeon Experience Over 10 Years

Objective

Endoscopic assisted breast surgery (EABS) or robotic assisted breast surgery (RABS) performed through minimal axillary and/or peri-areolar incisions has become the representative of minimal access breast surgery (MABS). We report the trend and clinical outcome of MABS for treatment of breast cancer.

Methods

Information on patients who underwent breast cancer operation by the principal investigator during the period of 2011 to 2020 was collected from a single institute for analysis. The clinical outcome, trend, and cost of MABS were analyzed and compared with conventional breast surgery (CBS).

Results

A total of 824 breast cancer patients operated by a single surgeon were enrolled in this study: 254 received CBS and 570 received MABS, namely, 476 EABS and 94 RABS. From 2011 to 2020, the number of MABS performed annually has shown an increasing trend. Compared with CBS, MABS such as breast conserving surgery and nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) have effectively reduced wound scar length. Since the sequential uprise from conventional NSM (C-NSM), dual-axillary-areolar-incision two dimensional (2D) endoscopic assisted NSM (E-NSM), single-axillary-incision E-NSM, robotic assisted NSM (R-NSM), and single-port 3D E-NSM, the development of minimal access mastectomies increasingly paralleled with NSM. The operation time of various MABS decreased significantly and showed no statistical difference compared with CBS. R-NSM was associated with highest cost, followed by 3D E-NSM, E-NSM, and C-NSM. The positive surgical margin rate and local recurrence rate of MABS and CBS were not statistically different.

Conclusion

MABS showed comparable clinical outcome and preliminary oncologic safety as CBS and has been increasingly performed as the surgical treatment of breast cancer, especially minimal access NSM.

From cadaveric and animal studies to the clinical reality of robotic mastectomy: a feasibility report of training program

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) provides better cosmetic outcomes and improves the quality of life of women with breast cancer. However, this has not been widely adapted due to the lack of well-structured training programs. The present study aimed to report the establishment of cadaveric and animal skill laboratory training programs for RNSM and the participants’ perception on the training programs. We performed 24 RNSMs using 11 cadavers and one porcine model. Then, the skill laboratory characteristics were reviewed. Five trainers and 10 trainees participated in the programs. The first four cadaveric RNSMs with latissimus dorsi flaps and implants were performed using the da Vinci Si® system. We performed 14 and six RNSMs using the Xi® and SP® systems, respectively. The scores for questionnaires on the satisfaction with the training consisted of the trainees’ perceived goals in attending the course, teaching/learning environment, and teaching staff performance. The scores were excellent. Cadaveric or porcine RNSM skill laboratory training may be essential programs that can provide safe and efficient training.

Breakthrough in breast reconstruction in the context of COVID-19: safety and efficiency of endoscopic breast reconstruction at a day surgery center

Background

In recently years, breast endoscopic reconstruction surgery is becoming increasingly popular. And we have explored a series of endoscopic breast reconstruction procedures and applied it to our day surgery under the epidemic control of the novel coronavirus.

Methods

The present study was a retrospective analysis. Patients who underwent unilateral breast endoscopic reconstruction surgery in the West China Hospital from April 2017 to February 2021 were included in the study. Patients were divided into the following three groups: ward exploration period (WEP), ward maturation period (WMP), and day surgery period (DSP), respectively. We compared the results of postoperative complications, hospitalization costs, operation time, and BREAST-Q (a patient-reported outcome instrument measuring health-related quality-of-life and patient satisfaction in breast surgery) scale scores among the three groups of patients.

Results

A total of 66 patients were included (WEP n=30, WMP n=14, DSP n=22). Four people refused to complete the BREAST-Q scale, and five patients missed complication record sheets. Patients in the DSP and WMP groups had slightly higher postoperative satisfaction with their breasts than WEP, but there was no statistically significant difference (3 months postoperatively: WEP vs. WMP =0.515, WEP vs. DSP =0.418, WMP vs. DSP =0.982). On the postoperative BREAST-Q scale scores of psychosocial, sexual life and chest well-being, patients with DSP scored slightly higher than those with WEP versus WMP, but there was no statistically significant difference. The incidence of postoperative complications was generally higher in the WEP group than in the WMP and DSP groups, but there was no statistically significant incidence of either major or minor complications (P=1.000). With the use of prostheses and mesh, patients in the DSP group had lower hospitalization costs than other two groups. In terms of operative time, patients in the WMP and DSP groups had shorter operative times compared with the WEP group, and the results were statistically significant (WEP vs. WMP =0.000, WEP vs. DSP =0.000, WMP vs. DSP =0.243).

Conclusions

We believe that performing our newly developed endoscopic breast reconstructive surgery at a day surgery center is safe and reliable.

A Randomized Trial of Robotic Mastectomy versus Open Surgery in Women With Breast Cancer or BRCA Mutation

Objective

To compare robotic mastectomy with open classical technique outcomes in breast cancer patients.

Summary Background Data

As the use of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy continues to rise, improved understanding of the surgical, oncologic and quality of life outcomes is imperative for appropriate patient selection as well as to better understand indications, limits, advantages and dangers.

Methods

In a phase III, open label, single center, randomized controlled trial involving 80 women with breast cancer (69) or with BRCA mutation (11), we compared the outcome of robotic and open nipple sparing mastectomy. Primary outcomes were surgical complications and quality of life using specific validated questionnaires. Secondary objective included oncologic outcomes.

Results

Robotic procedure was 1 hour and 18 minutes longer than open (P < 0.001). No differences in the number or type of complications (P = 0.11) were observed. Breast-Q scores in satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial, physical and sexual well-being were significantly higher after robotic mastectomy vs open procedure. Respect to baseline, physical and sexual well-being domains remained stable after robotic mastectomy while they significantly decreased after open procedure (P<= 0.02). The overall Body Image Scale questionnaire score was 20.7 +/- 13.8 vs. 9.9 +/- 5.1 in the robotic vs open groups respectively, P < 0.0001. At median follow-up 28.6 months (range 3.7-43.3), no local events were observed.

Conclusions

Complications were similar among groups upholding the robotic technique to be safe. Quality of life was maintained after robotic mastectomy while significantly decrease after open surgery. Early follow up confirm no premature local failure. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03440398.

Single-Port Three-Dimensional (3D) Videoscope-Assisted Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in the Management of Breast Cancer: Technique, Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, Learning Curve, and Patient-Reported Aesthetic Results from 80 Preliminary Procedures

BACKGROUND

The preliminary results of an innovative surgical technique, which incorporated single-port three-dimensional (3D) videoscope and instruments for endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM), were reported.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent single-port 3D E-NSM for breast cancer from August 2018 to September 2020 were analyzed, and the preliminary outcome of this procedure as well as the patient-reported aesthetic results are described in this article.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 70 patients who received 80 procedures of single-port 3D E-NSM. The mean operation time was 158 ± 36 min, and the mean blood loss was 41 ± 26 ml. Three procedures (3.8 %) associated with delayed axillary wound-healing, eight cases of transient nipple ischemia (10 %), three cases of partial nipple ischemia/necrosis (3.7 %), and one case of total nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis (1.3 %) were observed. No patient had margin involvement. Satisfaction rates of approximately 90 % were observed in terms of postoperative scar appearance, location, and length. Most of the patients (87.8 %) reported that they would choose the same operation again if given the chance to do so. The overall cost of a single-port 3D E-NSM was 7522 ± 470 U.S. dollars. According to cumulative sum (CUSUM) plot analysis, about 14 cases were needed for surgeons to familiarize themselves with single-port 3D E-NSM and immediate gel implant reconstruction and to decrease their operation time significantly in the initial learning phase.

CONCLUSION

Single-port 3D E-NSM, a safe, efficient, lower-cost procedure, is associated with a good aesthetic result. It is a promising new technique for breast cancer patients indicated for mastectomy, but long-term oncologic safety follow-up evaluation still is needed.

Robotic Versus Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Background

Several studies reported the feasibility and safety of robotic-NSM (R-NSM). The aim of our prospective study was to compare R-NSM and conventional-NSM (C-NSM).

Methods

We analyzed patients who were operated on with and without robotic assistance (R-NSM or C-NSM) and who received immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with implant or latissimus dorsi-flap (LDF). The main objective was complication rate and secondary aims were post-operative length of hospitalization (POLH), duration of surgery, and cost.

Results

We analyzed 87 R-NSM and 142 C-NSM with implant-IBR in 50 and 135 patients, with LDF-IBR in 37 and 7 patients, respectively. Higher durations of surgery and costs were observed for R-NSM, without a difference in POLH and interval time to adjuvant therapy between R-NSM and C-NSM. In the multivariate analysis, R-NSM was not associated with a higher breast complication rate (OR=0.608) and significant factors were breast cup-size, LDF combined with implant-IBR, tobacco and inversed-T incision. Grade 2-3 breast complications rate were 13% for R-NSM and 17.3% for C-NSM, significantly higher for LDF combined with implant-IBR, areolar/radial incisions and BMI>=30. A predictive score was calculated (AUC=0.754). In logistic regression, patient's satisfaction between C-NSM and R-NSM were not significantly different, with unfavorable results for BMI >=25 (OR=2.139), NSM for recurrence (OR=5.371) and primary breast cancer with radiotherapy (OR=4.533). A predictive score was calculated. In conclusion, our study confirms the comparable clinical outcome between C- NSM and R-NSM, in the price of longer surgery and higher cost for R-NSM. Predictive scores of breast complications and satisfaction were significantly associated with factors known in the pre-operative period.

Postoperative pain assessment of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate prepectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a comparison with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy

Aims: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is a surgical procedure for patients with breast cancer without nipple-areolar complex (NAC) involvement. Robotic NSM (RNSM) with immediate breast reconstruction has been recently introduced; however, reports regarding RNSM are still lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the postoperative assessment with a focus on postoperative pain of RNSM with prepectoral immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction (IPBR) compared with conventional NSM (CNSM) in patients with breast cancer without NAC invasion. Methods: This retrospective study included 81 patients who underwent RNSM (n = 40) or CNSM (n = 41) with prepectoral IPBR using direct-to-implant or tissue expander between January 2018 and June 2020. The primary endpoint was to compare postoperative pain intensity based on a numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the postoperative recovery profile, including postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) and complications. Results: A statistical difference was observed in the resting NRS scores at 0-6 postoperative hours between the RNSM and CNSM groups (3.2 ± 1.5 versus 4.2 ± 1.6, respectively; Bonferroni corrected P = 0.005), however, no difference was shown at other time periods. Also, no between-group difference was found in the NRS scores for acting pain within 48 postoperative hours and the number of patients requiring additional analgesics. Conclusions: Despite a statistical difference in the resting NRS scores during the early postoperative phase, the absence of any significant difference in the requirement of additional analgesics between the groups suggested that RNSM does not significantly attenuate postoperative pain intensity.