Twenty-four-hour discharge of patients after endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: safety and aesthetic outcomes from a prospective cohort study

Vascular anomalies of the limb and trunk in children: a retrospective comparative study of endoscopic surgery and open surgery

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection has been reported for vascular anomalies (VA) previously. However, there is no study comparing endoscopic resection surgery (ERS) with open resection surgery (ORS) in children. We aimed to compare clinical and cosmetic outcomes between two approaches in pediatric VA.

METHODS

Between June 2018 and June 2023, 138 pediatric VA patients undergoing ERS or ORS were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize selection bias. The Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) Scale and numerical rating scale (NRS) based on patient satisfaction were used for cosmetic assessment.

RESULTS

After PSM for age, depth of lesion, size of lesion, and site of surgery, 72 patients (ERS = 24, ORS = 48) were analyzed. Patients undergoing ERS had longer operative time (164.25 ± 18.46 vs. 112.85 ± 14.26 min; P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (5.42 ± 2.15 vs. 18.04 ± 1.62 ml; P < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (4.50 [3.00-5.00] vs. 6.00 [5.00-6.00] days; P < 0.001). The follow-up time was 8.04 ± 1.23 month for ERS group and 8.56 ± 1.57 month for ORS group. For aesthetic results, the median overall SCAR score in ERS was lower than that in ORS (2 [1-3] vs. 5 [4-5]; P < 0.001), and the subscales of "scar spread," "dyspigmentation," "track marks or suture marks," and "overall impression" were better. The median NRS score was higher (8 [7-8] vs. 6 [5-6]; P < 0.001) and length of scars was shorter (2.18 ± 0.30 vs. 8.75 ± 1.98 cm; P < 0.001) in ERS group than those in ORS group. The incidences of total complications and recurrence showed no significant difference between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic surgery can be a safe and effective option for pediatric VA in the limbs and trunk. It offers the advantages of improving aesthetic outcomes and reducing postoperative wound healing time.

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.