An inferolateral approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy: optimizing mastectomy and reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;65:140-143. [PMID: 20606592 DOI: 10.1097/sap.0b013e3181c1fe77]

Oncologic Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer in BRCA Gene Mutation Carriers: Outcomes at 70 Months Median Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Retention of the nipple-areola complex with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) techniques provides a more natural cosmetic result than procedures that sacrifice the nipple. While the oncologic safety of NSM is established by several studies, there is little long-term data on outcomes in BRCA mutation carriers with breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who underwent NSM and immediate reconstruction from 2008 to 2019 were reviewed and patients with breast cancer on biopsy or final pathology were included. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics, as well as treatment, recurrence, and survival data were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 114 therapeutic NSM were performed in 105 BRCA mutation carriers (56 BRCA1, 47 BRCA2, and two women with both mutations). Median age was 45 years. Cancers were 18% stage 0, 52% stage I, 27% stage II, and 3% stage III. Mean invasive tumor size was 1.6 cm and 33 (35%) invasive tumors were triple negative. There were five (4.4%) positive nipple margins on final pathology; all underwent nipple excision. Most patients (80, 76%) received systemic therapy: 65 (62%) received chemotherapy and 48 (46%) received endocrine therapy. At 70 months median follow-up (range 15-150 months), no patient had developed a recurrence in the retained nipple-areola complex or at the site of a nipple excised for a positive margin. The rate of locoregional recurrence outside the nipple was 2.6%, and the rate of distant recurrence was 3.8%. Overall survival was 96%.

CONCLUSIONS

NSM is a safe option for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who undergo mastectomy for breast cancer.

Prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: results of a French prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is used increasingly when performing a prophylactic mastectomy. Few prospective studies have reported on complication rates. This complementary trial to the French prospective multicentre MAPAM trial aimed to evaluate the nipple-areola complex (NAC) necrosis rate in prophylactic NSM with IBR.

METHODS

Patient characteristics and surgical data were recorded. Morbidity after prophylactic NSM with a focus on NAC necrosis was analysed.

RESULTS

Among 59 women undergoing prophylactic NSM, 19 (32 per cent) of the incisions were partly on the NAC. Reconstructions were performed with 46 definitive implants and 13 expanders. The crude rate of postoperative complications was 25 per cent (15 patients). Complete NAC necrosis was reported in two women (3 per cent) and partial or total necrosis in nine (15 per cent). No NAC resection was necessary. Median BMI was lower in women with total or partial NAC necrosis compared with the others (20.0 versus 21.3 kg/m2 respectively; P = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Results of this prospective study confirm that prophylactic NSM with IBR is associated with a low risk of total NAC necrosis.

How Protective are Nipple-Sparing Prophylactic Mastectomies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers?

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is now routinely offered to BRCA mutation carriers for risk reduction. We assessed the rates of ipsilateral cancer events after prophylactic and therapeutic NSM in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

METHODS

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers undergoing NSM from October 2007 to June 2019 were identified in a single-institution prospective database, with variants of unknown significance being excluded. Patient, tumor, and outcomes data were collected. Follow-up analysis was by cumulative breast-years (total years of follow-up of each breast) and woman-years (total years of follow-up of each woman).

RESULTS

Overall, 307 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (160 BRCA1, mean age 41.4 years [range 21-65]; and 147 BRCA2, mean age 43.8 years [range 23-65]) underwent 607 NSMs, with a median follow-up of 42 months (range 1-143). 388 bilateral prophylactic NSMs had 744 cumulative woman-years of follow-up, with no new cancers seen (< 0.0013 new cancers per woman-years); 251 BRCA1 prophylactic NSMs had 1034 cumulative breast-years of follow-up, with no new ipsilateral cancers seen (< 0.0010 per breast-year); 66 BRCA1 therapeutic NSMs had 328 cumulative breast-years of follow-up, with one ipsilateral cancer recurrence not directly involving the nipple or areola (0.0030 per breast-year); 237 BRCA2 prophylactic NSMs had 926 cumulative breast-years of follow-up, with no new ipsilateral cancers seen (< 0.0011 per breast-year); and 53 BRCA2 therapeutic NSMs had 239 cumulative breast-years of follow-up, with two ipsilateral recurrent cancers, neither of which directly involved the nipple or areola (0.0084 per breast-year).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of new ipsilateral breast cancers is extremely low after NSM in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. NSM is an effective risk-reducing strategy for BRCA gene mutations.

Breast Reconstruction and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Technical Modifications and Their Outcomes Over Time at an Academic Breast Center

BACKGROUND

Superior aesthetic outcomes can be achieved with mastectomy techniques that maximize breast envelope preservation and maintain the nipple-areolar complex. This is the impetus for the popularization of the nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a challenging procedure due to potential ischemia of the mastectomy flap (which includes the nipple-areolar complex) and the risk of incomplete oncologic resection. We review our experience with NSM, identify technique modifications used over time, and evaluate reconstructive outcomes of NSM and its modifications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients with NSM and breast reconstruction over an 8-year period was completed.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients underwent 95 NSMs. Indications included invasive and in situ cancer, atypical ductal hyperplasia, and risk reduction. In the first 4 years of experience, the most frequently used NSM incision was radial (lateral) whereas use of a variety of incision patterns was noted in the second 4 years. Overall NSM and breast reconstruction complication rate for the entire study period was 50.9% and included a full-thickness mastectomy skin flap necrosis/nipple necrosis rate of 8.4%. In situ cancer of the nipple was identified in 3.2% of the patients, and 1 patient had locoregional recurrence. Overall complication rate was lower in the second 4 years of experience with NSM and reconstruction. One third of the patients underwent intraoperative fluorescent angiography (FA) to assess mastectomy skin perfusion before reconstruction start. Of the patients who had FA due to perfusion concerns, more than 70% of studies demonstrated poor perfusion and 83.3% of these patients had reconstruction delayed based on these results. Immediate, implant-based reconstruction was performed most commonly. An average of 2.66 procedures were required to achieve reconstruction completion, and 92.4% of the patients who sought reconstruction achieved completion.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, NSM use is increasing, NSM incision pattern types used are expanding, and complication rates are decreasing. Immediate, implant-based reconstruction is most commonly used in combination with NSM at our institution. Fluorescent angiography is used to assess mastectomy skin perfusion and likely limits mastectomy complication effects on reconstruction. Despite the occurrence of complications, most patients will complete the breast reconstruction process.

Retrospective analysis between complication and nipple areola complex preservation in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction

Background

Since the introduction of skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), more breast surgeons have been preserving the areola and often nipple areolar complex (NAC) entirely. For better outcomes, more studies are necessary to analyze whether preserving the areola or NAC is unfavorable in breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to assess the potential risk of areola or NAC preservation in direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction after SSM.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction from May 2011 to July 2017. Immediate breast reconstruction was performed with DTI procedure in all cases. In total, 213 breasts met the inclusion criteria and were divided into 3 groups: nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), aerola-sparing mastectomy (ASM) which only nipple is excised, and skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) which whole NAC was excised. Complications including infection, capsular contracture, skin necrosis and explantation were measured.

Results

The mean patient age was 45.3 years, with a range of 27-62 years; the mean follow-up was 3.08 years. NSM, ASM and SSM groups consisted of 121, 30 and 62 breasts, respectively. The Infection rates were statistically lower in SSM group (4.8%) compared with NSM group (15.7%) (P=0.033) but not statistically different from ASM group (13.3%) (P=0.210). SSM group showed significantly lower rate of overall complication compared with both NSM and ASM groups (P=0.005, 0.025 respectively).

Conclusions

Our research suggests that preservation of the NAC increases the rate of infection and skin necrosis in DTI breast reconstruction.

Update in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction

Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) remains the most commonly utilized breast reconstruction option for post-mastectomy patients. IBR can be approached as either a one-stage reconstruction or a two-stage reconstruction. Facilitated by improvements in surgical technology and advanced techniques, one-stage reconstruction, also known as direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, involves the insertion of an implant at the time of mastectomy. The decision to pursue either a DTI or a two-stage reconstruction is based on several factors, including the patient's overall health, expected risk of postoperative complications, and associated costs to both the patient and hospital.

Implant Reconstruction in Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

Nipple sparing mastectomy has been popularized in the modern era of breast cancer treatment due to its touted advantages with regard to resultant body image and reconstructive outcome. Implant-based techniques remain the most prevalent means of breast reconstruction. Special considerations regarding patient selection and technique are reviewed for implant reconstruction in the setting of mastectomy with nipple preservation. Applications for prepectoral and direct-to-implant reconstruction are discussed and published outcomes are summarized.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Incisions for Cancer Extirpation Prospective Cohort Trial: Perfusion, Complications, and Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy offers several advantages for women seeking postmastectomy breast reconstruction, but compromised skin and nipple perfusion may lead to skin and nipple necrosis. It is unclear whether the incisional approach contributes to these complications; therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the impact of incision type on outcomes in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic breast reconstruction through an inframammary fold versus a lateral radial incision. Skin and nipple perfusion as represented by fluorescence intensity, mammometric parameters, patient-reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared for the two cohorts, and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to evaluate the effects of covariates on outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were studied: 55 in the inframammary fold cohort and 24 in the lateral radial cohort. The inframammary fold group had significantly less fluorescence intensity to the inferior (21.9 percent versus 36.9 percent; p = 0.001) and lateral portions of breast skin (23.1 percent versus 40.7 percent; p = 0.003) after reconstruction. Decreased fluorescence intensity was associated with smoking, decreased mean arterial pressure, and greater specimen weight. Postreconstruction breast volumes were increased over preoperative volumes in the inframammary fold group (38.3 percent) versus the lateral radial (31.2 percent) group; however, patients with a lateral radial incision had a greater increase in satisfaction with their breasts and psychosocial well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences in patient-reported outcomes and final breast volumes based on the incisional approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy. These data can be used to guide providers and counsel patients considering nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Comparison of Outcomes between Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy through Inframammary Fold Incision versus Noninframammary Fold Incision

Purpose

In properly selected patients with breast cancer, nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is generally considered safe by oncologic standards. We examined two groups of patients who underwent direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction after NSM, comparing complications encountered, revision rates, and aesthetic outcomes. The patients were stratified based on type of surgical incision and assigned to inframammary fold (IMF) and non-IMF groups.

Methods

We investigated 141 patients (145 breasts) subjected to NSM and immediate DTI reconstruction between 2013 and 2016. A total of 62 breasts (in 58 patients) were surgically removed via IMF incisions, with the other 83 breasts (in 83 patients) removed by non-IMF means.

Results

Complications associated with IMF (n=62) and non-IMF (n=83) incisions were as follows: skin necrosis (IMF, 9; non-IMF, 18); hematoma (IMF, 3; non-IMF, 4); seroma (IMF, 8; non-IMF, 4); mild capsular contracture (IMF, 4; non-IMF, 7); and tumor recurrence (IMF, 2; non-IMF, 8). Surgical revisions were counted as duplicates (IMF, 18; non-IMF, 38). Aesthetic outcomes following IMF incisions were rated as very good (44.2%), good (23.1%), fair (23.1%), or poor (9.6%).

Conclusion

IMF incision enables complete preservation of the nipple-areolar complex, yielding superior aesthetic results in immediate DTI breast reconstruction after NSM. The nature of incision used had no significant impact on postoperative complications or reoperation rates and had comparable oncologic safety to that of non-IMF incisions. IMF incisions produced the least visible scarring and did not affect breast shape. Most patients were satisfied with the aesthetic outcomes.

Nipple sparing mastectomy techniques: a literature review and an inframammary technique

Nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) has quickly become an accepted technique for patients with selected cancers and for risk reducing surgery. Much of its surgical acceptance over the last decade has been based on the low risk of nipple areolar complex (NAC) occurrence in breast cancer patients. Improved patient satisfaction due to improved cosmetic outcomes with reconstruction have also driven its popularity. We reviewed current English journals to determine the NSM techniques which achieve the lowest complications, best outcomes, and best patient satisfaction. We researched studies showing reductions in complications with improved surgical techniques and patient selection which have been implicated in improved results. In the studies reviewed, incision placement, away from the nipple, resulted in the lowest rates of ischemic nipple complications and the best cosmetic outcomes. The effect of other factors such as surgeon experience and thickness of skin flap development were more difficult to prove. Leaving a 2-3 mm rim of tissue around the nipple bundle was shown to help preserve the nipple vascularity. Lower complication rates with improved outcomes and patient satisfaction were reported in the literature in patients with B or smaller cup sizes, non-smokers, and patients with lower body mass index (BMI). Incision placement, away from the nipple, with preservation of a 2-3 mm rim of tissue around the nipple bundle along with careful patient selection were the most significant variables reviewed which helped to lower complications rates of NSM. Coordinated surgical planning with the breast and plastic surgeons to determine the best surgical approach for each individual patient is necessary to obtain the best results. Although short-term oncologic follow-up seems to be acceptable, longer follow-up will still be needed to define the best breast cancer surgical candidates for the nipple sparing approach.

Evidence based outcomes of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Registry

Background

The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Registry (NSMR) is a prospective, non-randomized, IRB approved, multi-institutional registry. The purpose of this Registry is to provide a large, prospective, non-randomized database of patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, surgical technique, and outcome (both aesthetic and oncologic) of the nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM).

Methods

Data is entered into the ASBrS NSMR, housed within the Mastery of Surgery Program, after patients consent to participation. Each investigator routinely offers NSM in their practice has obtained IRB approval and completed forms of agreement to participate in the ASBrS NSMR.

Results

This data set represents a total of 1,935 NSMs performed on 1,170 patients by 98 investigators from 70 institutions/sites. Of the 1,935 NSMs: 833 were performed for an indication of cancer [594 invasive carcinoma and 239 for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)] and 1,102 were prophylactic. Of the 1,170 total patients, 352 underwent a unilateral and 818 underwent a bilateral NSM. Recurrence at a mean follow-up of 31 months/median follow-up of 27 months, with a range of 9.7 to 58.3 months since surgery was 1.4% with no recurrences at the nipple or nipple areola complex (NAC). Cancer occurrence (0.3%) also did not involve the nipple/NAC. Overall patient satisfaction of excellent/good: 94.9% and overall cosmesis (surgeon rated) of excellent/good was 96.4%. Overall infection rates included flap infection of 4.4%, NAC complication rate of 4.5% (defined as necrosis/other or ischemia/epidermolysis requiring surgery), and a 10% rate of NAC epidermolysis with full recovery.

Conclusions

NSMs were performed on breasts with a variety of sizes and degrees of ptosis, via multiple incisions, dissection and reconstruction techniques with low complication rates and high patient satisfaction and surgeon rated cosmesis.

Optimizing Nipple Position following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Background:

The best treatment for nipple malposition following nipple-sparing mastectomy is prevention. This article reviews basic elements for success in nipple-sparing mastectomy and offers an option to patients with grade 2–3 breast ptosis who strongly desire to preserve the nipple.

Methods:

Retrospective review identified patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction.

Results:

Patient selection centered on realistic goals for postoperative breast size, nipple position, and when not to save the nipple. The choice of device considered projection and nipple centralization as equal components and led to wider, lower profile devices selectively for the first stage of reconstruction. In severe grade 2–3 nipple ptosis, an inferior vertical incision or wedge excision was used to enhance nipple position postoperatively. Eighteen consecutive patients underwent 32 implant-based breast reconstructions following nipple-sparing mastectomy with the vertical incision. The average age was 45 years old, and the average body mass index was 26.7. Direct-to-implant reconstruction was performed in 25%, whereas 75% had tissue expander-implant reconstruction. Overall complications included infection (3%) and nipple necrosis (3%) leading to explant in 1 reconstruction.

Conclusions:

The final nipple position following nipple-sparing mastectomy can be optimized with preoperative planning. The vertical incision, combined with proper patient selection and choice of device, may increase eligibility for nipple-sparing procedures in patients with grade 2–3 ptosis who desire nipple preservation.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy using a hemi-periareolar incision with or without minimal medial-lateral extensions; clinical outcome and patient satisfaction: A single centre prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is becoming a viable oncoplastic option. There is debate regarding the best approach that balances oncological safety with aesthetics. In this study, we describe an approach involving a hemi-periareolar incision and evaluate its safety and outcomes.

METHODS

Patients treated at single center between 2012 and 2015 were observed prospectively. After a histologically negative subareolar biopsy, immediate reconstruction with implant and acellular dermal matrix was performed after NSM. Primary end points were wound complications and explantation. Secondary end points included local recurrence, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and esthetic outcome.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included with 92 procedures. Twenty-seven percent received chemotherapy and 12.7% received radiotherapy. Mean follow-up was 27.6 months. There were only 2 wound complications, and no recurrences. Mean outcome scores were promising (Breast Q = 88%, subjective esthetic = 9.2, objective esthetic = 9.3, hardening = 2.6).

CONCLUSIONS

NSM via a hemi-periareolar incision is oncologically safe with a low-complication rate and high patients' satisfaction.

The Oncological Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature with a Pooled Analysis of 12,358 Procedures

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly popular as a procedure for the treatment of breast cancer and as a prophylactic procedure for those at high risk of developing the disease. However, it remains a controversial option due to questions regarding its oncological safety and concerns regarding locoregional recurrence. This systematic review with a pooled analysis examines the current literature regarding NSM, including locoregional recurrence and complication rates. Systematic electronic searches were conducted using the PubMed database and the Ovid database for studies reporting the indications for NSM and the subsequent outcomes. Studies between January 1970 and January 2015 (inclusive) were analysed if they met the inclusion criteria. Pooled descriptive statistics were performed. Seventy-three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis, yielding 12,358 procedures. After a mean follow up of 38 months (range, 7.4–156 months), the overall pooled locoregional recurrence rate was 2.38%, the overall complication rate was 22.3%, and the overall incidence of nipple necrosis, either partial or total, was 5.9%. Significant heterogeneity was found among the published studies and patient selection was affected by tumour characteristics. We concluded that NSM appears to be an oncologically safe option for appropriately selected patients, with low rates of locoregional recurrence. For NSM to be performed, tumours should be peripherally located, smaller than 5 cm in diameter, located more than 2 cm away from the nipple margin, and human epidermal growth factor 2-negative. A separate histopathological examination of the subareolar tissue and exclusion of malignancy at this site is essential for safe oncological practice. Long-term follow-up studies and prospective cohort studies are required in order to determine the best reconstructive methods.

Nipple Pathology in Total Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Implications for Immediate Reconstruction

PURPOSE

The management of occult tumor involvement of the nipple during total skin-sparing mastectomy (TSSM) and immediate reconstruction is not well addressed in the literature. We reviewed our experience with positive nipple core biopsies, comparing outcomes of different management options.

METHODS

Mastectomy and implant/expander reconstructions over a 5-year period were reviewed. Patient characteristics, type of mastectomy, and complications were analyzed. Patients were grouped by type of mastectomy/immediate reconstruction and delayed reconstruction to compare outcomes. Positive intraoperative core nipple biopsy cases formed a subset of the TSSM group.

RESULTS

Forty-four of 240 (18%) cases were TSSMs performed through inferolateral incisions. All were reconstructed immediately, 24 with tissue expanders and 20 with implants. Major complications (necrosis, infection, seroma) were significantly lower than for skin-sparing mastectomies, but higher than delayed reconstruction. One case of full thickness nipple necrosis occurred. Seven of the TSSM group had positive core nipple biopsies (16%). Three of these patients underwent nipple excision and tissue expander placement at the initial surgery, of which 2 developed subsequent mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring explantation. A third patient underwent staged nipple excision without complication. The remaining 3 patients underwent delayed nipple resection at the time of tissue expander replacement without complication. Pathology in the nipple core was invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ. No TSSM patients have developed local recurrence at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent excision of the nipple and an inferolateral incision increase the incidence of skin flap necrosis. Delaying nipple excision may prove to be a safer option.

Conservative mastectomies: an overview

Conservative mastectomies provide removal of the entire breast parenchyma, saving the outer covering of the mammary gland with the possibility of performing an immediate reconstruction preserving women body image. We rationalised and systematically organized our reconstructive algorythms giving a new different light to mastectomies, the so-called "conservative mastectomies", an oxymoron indicating skin-sparing mastectomies (SSM), nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomies (NSM) and skin-reducing mastectomies (SRM). Eventhough randomized controlled trials comparing conservative mastectomies with traditional mastectomy and breast conserving surgery would be auspicable in order to achieve higher levels of evidence, we could confidently conclude that conservative mastectomies offer the psychological advantages of good cosmesis and maintenance of woman body image without compromising the oncological safety of mastectomy.

What is the evidence behind conservative mastectomies?

INTRODUCTION

Besides the diffusion of breast reconstructive techniques, several "conservative" approaches in mastectomy have been developed, in order to perform an immediate reconstruction with better aesthetic results: the skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), the nipple-areola complex (NAC)-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and the skin-reducing mastectomy (SRM). During the last decade, SSMs and NSMs have gained widespread acceptance and are currently considered standard treatment for early breast cancer. We would like to investigate the evidence behind this radical shift towards conservative mastectomies, where there has been a renewed interest worldwide.

METHODS

We reviewed English literature by consulting the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal and Clinicaltrials.gov. The objective is to include any randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a "conservative mastectomy" technique to breast conservative surgery or modified radical mastectomy (MRM) for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. In the absence of randomized trials, we took into account prospective cohorts and retrospective series for a narrative description of available evidence.

RESULTS

Our review included 58 studies [19 prospective cohorts (34%) and 39 retrospective series (66%)] considering NSM and immediate reconstruction and ten studies [1 prospective cohort (10%) and 9 (90%) retrospective series] considering SSM and immediate reconstruction. In the NSM group, 29 studies reported data about complication rates and 42 studies presented data on NAC partial or complete necrosis. In the NSM group 45 studies and all the studies in the SSM group presented data on local and NAC recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to achieve higher levels of evidence, RCTs comparing conservative mastectomies to traditional mastectomy and breast conservative surgery would be desirable. However we can conclude that conservative mastectomies offer the psychological advantages of good cosmetics and maintenance of woman body image without compromising the oncological safety of mastectomy.

Current strategies with 1-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

1-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction is gaining traction as a preferred method of breast reconstruction in select patients who undergo mastectomy for cancer or prevention.

METHODS

Critical elements to the procedure including patient selection, technique, surgical judgment, and postoperative care were reviewed.

RESULTS

Outcomes series reveal that in properly selected patients, direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction has similar low rates of complications and high rates of patient satisfaction compared to traditional 2-stage reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

1-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction may be the procedure of choice in select patients undergoing mastectomy. Advantages include the potential for the entire reconstructive process to be complete in one surgery, the quick return to normal activities, and lack of donor site morbidity.

How to perform a NAC sparing mastectomy using an ADM and an implant

BACKGROUND

Preservation of the nipple areolar complex (NAC) provides the optimal conditions for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Growing evidence suggests the oncological safety of nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) when neither NAC nor skin is affected by tumor. This paper presents our initial experience performing NSM and IBR in a selected group of patients through the inframammary incision assisted by hydrodissection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study includes 20 healthy women, aged 23-53, and referred for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. NSM was carried out using inframammary crease incision assisted by hydrodissection followed by IBR with an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and an implant as presented in the attached video. Exclusions criteria were hypertension, diabetes, active smoking and previous chest radiation therapy. Data was collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

We achieved the reconstructive goal for all 40 breasts (100%). There were no cases of NAC necrosis. Minor complications were registered in two reconstructions (5%), including one case of small partial necrosis and one case of wound dehiscence. The median follow-up was 13 months (range, 1-32 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral risk-reducing NSM and IBR can be successfully achieved through an inframammary crease incision assisted by hydrodissection. Patient selection is the key to a successful outcome.

A novel technique of preserving internal mammary artery perforators in nipple sparing breast reconstruction

SUMMARY

As nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction has increased, attention must be paid to the viability of the nipple-areolar complex. This article describes the use of preoperative Doppler ultrasound to identify the internal mammary artery perforators. Preserving the internal mammary artery improves vascular supply to the nipple-areolar complex.

Immediate nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy reconstruction: An update on oncological and reconstruction techniques

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is a safe technique in patients who are candidates for conservation breast surgery. However, there is worry concerning its oncological safety and surgical outcome in terms of postoperative complications. The authors reviewed the literature to evaluate the oncological safety, patient selection, surgical techniques, and also to identify the factors influencing postoperative outcome and complication rates. Patient selection and safety related to NSM are based on oncological and anatomical parameters. Among the main criteria, the oncological aspects include the clinical stage of breast cancer, tumor characteristics and location including small, peripherally located tumors, without multicentricity, or for prophylactic mastectomy. Surgical success depends on coordinated planning with the oncological surgeon and careful preoperative and intraoperative management. In general, the NSM reconstruction is related to autologous and alloplastic techniques and sometimes include contra-lateral breast surgery. Choice of reconstructive technique following NSM requires accurate consideration of various patient related factors, including: breast volume, degree of ptosis, areola size, clinical factors, and surgeon’s experience. In addition, tumor related factors include dimension, location and proximity to the nipple-areola complex. Regardless of the fact that there is no unanimity concerning the appropriate technique, the criteria are determined by the surgeon’s experience and the anatomical aspects of the breast. The positive aspects of the technique utilized should include low interference with the oncological treatment, reproducibility, and long-term results. Selected patients can have safe outcomes and therefore this may be a feasible option for early breast cancer management. However, available data demonstrates that NSM can be safely performed for breast cancer treatment in selected cases. Additional studies and longer follow-up are necessary to define consistent selection criteria for NSM.

Inframammary approach to nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Different approaches have been advocated for performing nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy. The inframammary approach has been viewed as having limited applications, particularly in large breasts. The authors review their experience with nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy using the inframammary approach for different breast sizes.

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2012, 118 nipple-areola-sparing mastectomies with staged implant-based reconstruction were performed in 80 consecutive patients. Patients with different breast sizes underwent inframammary nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy, except those patients who had very large breasts or those who requested a breast lift. Oncologic data related to tumor size, selection criteria, and recurrences are presented. All nipple-areola-sparing mastectomies and reconstructions were performed by the same surgeons (J.K.H. and A.H.S), who operated as a team in performing the mastectomies.

RESULTS

Patients were followed up from 6 to 97 months (mean, 33.5 months). There were four recurrences (5 percent), three of which were attributed to the biological behavior of the tumor. The aesthetic outcomes of the reconstructions were analyzed based on nipple location, breast contour, and symmetry: 35 patients (44 percent) had a very good result, 28 (35 percent) had a good result, nine (11 percent) had a fair result, and eight (10 percent) had a poor result. Risk factors and complications affecting the final aesthetic outcome are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The inframammary approach for nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy is the authors' procedure of choice for small, medium, and large breasts. The team approach to the mastectomy facilitates the procedure, reduces skin-related complications, and results in a better aesthetic outcome.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a controversial option for breast cancer treatment due to locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis. In addition to these oncologic factors, technical factors such as ideal incision type or reconstructive options are also debatable. This systematic review examines current trends with nipple-sparing mastectomy, including selection criteria, locoregional and distant metastasis rates, incision choice, and reconstructive options.

METHODS

Systematic electronic searches were performed in the PubMed and Ovid databases using search terms for studies reporting outcomes following nipple-sparing mastectomy and all forms of reconstruction. Studies between 1970 and 2013 were reviewed. Pooled descriptive statistics with separate analyses for incision type and reconstructive method were performed.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies met inclusion criteria, yielding 6615 nipple-sparing mastectomies for analysis. The overall pooled complication rate was 22 percent, the nipple necrosis rate was 7 percent, the locoregional recurrence rate was 1.8 percent, and the distant metastasis rate was 2.2 percent. Comparing combined patient cohorts for two-stage expander to implant, one-stage direct to implant, and autologous reconstruction demonstrated overall complication rates of 52.8, 16.7, and 23.7 percent and nipple necrosis rates of 4.5, 4.1, and 17.3 percent, respectively. Incision types were divided into five categories: radial, periareolar/circumareolar, inframammary, mastopexy, and transareolar, with nipple necrosis rates of 8.83, 17.81, 9.09, 4.76, and 81.82 percent, respectively

CONCLUSIONS

Nipple-sparing mastectomy appears to be an oncologically safe option for properly selected patients, with low rates of locoregional and distant metastasis. Overall complication and nipple necrosis rates are affected by incision location and reconstruction method. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine best incision and reconstructive methods.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

One-staged silicone implant breast reconstruction following bilateral nipple-sparing prophylactic mastectomy in patients at high-risk for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

There is little consensus regarding the indications, ideal incision, or reconstruction method for prophylactic mastectomy. In addition, the biggest limitation in studies that assess either patient satisfaction or operation results is the lack of group homogeneity.

METHODS

In our center, 21 bilateral prophylactic mastectomies, due to breasts at high risk for cancer, and simultaneous breast reconstruction using submuscular medium-height high-profile silicone implants were performed between 2008 and 2012. The patients were divided into two groups: small-breasted (9 patients) and large/ptotic-breasted (12 patients). A periareolar incision was used in the 9 patients and a vertical mastopexy incision was used in the 12 patients who needed nipple-areola complex repositioning.

RESULTS

The rates of general satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes, assessed using the Michigan Breast Satisfaction Questionnaire, were 100 and 90.4%, respectively. Seroma occurred in three patients and venous congestion of the nipple-areola complex developed in four patients, which resolved spontaneously. No nipple-areola necrosis, implant exposition, or capsule contractures were encountered. Only three patients underwent fat injection for contour restoration.

CONCLUSION

We obtained very good aesthetic results with low complication rates using this technique in a homogeneous group of patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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 .