Nipple Areola Reconstruction

Guiding Nipple-Areola Complex Reconstruction: Literature Review and Proposal of a New Decision-Making Algorithm

BACKGROUND

Nipple-areola complex reconstruction (NAR) most commonly represents the finishing touch to breast reconstruction (BR). Nipple presence is particularly relevant to the patient's psyche, beyond any shadow of doubt. Many reconstructive options have been described in time. Surgery is easy, but final result is often disappointing on the long run.

METHODS

The goal of this manuscript is to analyze and classify knowledge concerning NAR techniques and the factors that influence success, and then to elaborate a practical evidence-based algorithm. Out of the 3136 available articles as of August 8th, 2020, we selected 172 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria, which we subdivided into 5 main topics of discussion, being the various NAR techniques; patient factors (including patient selection, timing and ideal position); dressings; potential complications and finally, outcomes/patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

We found 92 articles describing NAR techniques, 41 addressing patient factors (out of which 17 discussed patient selection, 14 described ideal NAC location, 10 described appropriate timing), 10 comparing dressings, 7 studying NAR complications, and 22 addressing outcomes and patient satisfaction. We elaborated a comprehensive decision-making algorithm to help narrow down the choice among NAR techniques, and choose the correct strategy according to the various scenarios, and particularly the BR technique and skin envelope.

CONCLUSIONS

No single NAR technique provides definitive results, which is why we believe there is no "end-all be-all solution". NAR must be approached as a case-by-case situation. Furthermore, despite NAR being such a widely discussed topic in scientific literature, we still found a lack of clinical trials to allow for more thorough recommendations to be elaborated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The nipple is an uncommon site for breast cancer development, but the nipple-areola complex is routinely excised in breast cancer treatment. The authors evaluated the risks and benefits of nipple- or areola-sparing mastectomy with breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The authors analyzed data on 115 consecutive nipple- or areola-sparing mastectomies with immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction performed in 66 patients from 1998 to 2008 at a single tertiary-care cancer center. Nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed for prophylaxis (n = 75) or treatment of disease (n = 40).

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 45 years (range, 24 to 61 years) and mean follow-up time was 22 months (range, 2 weeks to 91 months). There were 115 nipple- or areola-sparing mastectomies (48 bilateral and 19 unilateral), including 111 nipple-sparing and four areola-sparing mastectomies. On pathologic review, 20 breasts had ductal carcinoma in situ, 20 breasts had invasive cancer, 11 breasts had lobular carcinoma in situ, one breast had phyllodes tumor, one breast had mucinous carcinoma, and 62 breasts were cancer-free. Incision placement was periareolar and radial (n = 61), inframammary (n = 25), omega type (n = 14), customized to include a previous scar (n = 10), or transareolar (n = 5). Of all 115 nipple- or areola-sparing mastectomies, six nipples were lost because of occult disease (5.2 percent), and four nipples were lost because of wound-healing problems (3.5 percent).

CONCLUSIONS

In the authors' series of nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomies performed for risk reduction or breast cancer, there was a low incidence of occult disease (5.2 percent). Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy may be feasible in selected patients and should be the subject of additional investigation.

Effectiveness of the Asteame Nipple Guard™ in maintaining projection following nipple reconstruction: a prospective randomised controlled trial

As the final step in breast reconstruction, nipple reconstruction is considered a minor surgical procedure. However, despite the multitude of techniques and postoperative dressings proposed, none have proven to resist the tendency of the reconstructed nipple to gradually flatten over time. A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted assessing the value of using the Asteame Nipple Guard™ compared to standard gauze dressing in maintaining nipple projection postoperatively. A total of 30 nipple reconstructions in 22 patients were included in the study with randomisation of 15 nipples to each study arm. Nipple projection was measured at various time points postoperatively with calculation of the percent changes in nipple projection. The mean decrease in long-term nipple projection at 6 months in the experimental group was 46.6% vs. 71.8% in the control group (p<0.05). In conclusion, the Nipple Guard™ helps in maintaining nipple projection postoperatively.