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)

Learning curve for robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy: A single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RANSM) is emerging because it offers hidden incisions and ergonomic movements. In this study, we report the learning curve and feasibility of RANSM.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted among women who underwent RANSM with immediate breast reconstruction from July 2019 to June 2022. All RANSM procedures were performed by a single surgeon. We divided all the cases into two phases: the early phase (cases 1 to 21) and the late phase (cases 22 to 46). The total operation time, breast operation time, docking time, and console time were analyzed, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to evaluate the effects of case experience accumulation on the time required for RANSM. Postoperative complications were analyzed according to their Clavien-Dindo grade.

RESULTS

Overall, 42 women underwent 46 RANSM procedures. In the early and late phases, the mean console times were 78.1 min and 60.1 min (p = 0.011), respectively. In learning curve analysis, 21 RANSM procedures were required to reduce the breast operation time. Two cases of Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications occurred (4.3 %). One case was an implant removal caused by infection, and the other was partial nipple ischemia; both occurred in the early phase, with none in the late phase.

CONCLUSIONS

The breast operation time improved after the 21st RANSM procedure, and only two cases had Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher postoperative complications. RANSM is thus technically feasible and acceptable, with a short learning curve.

Minimal Access vs Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Importance

While nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) for breast cancer was only performed using the open method in the past, its frequency using endoscopic and robotic surgical instruments has been increasing rapidly. However, there are limited studies regarding postoperative complications and the benefits and drawbacks of minimal access NSM (M-NSM) compared with conventional NSM (C-NSM).

Objective

To examine the differences in postoperative complications between C-NSM and M-NSM.

Design, Setting, Participants

This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study enrolling 1583 female patients aged 19 years and older with breast cancer who underwent NSM at 21 university hospitals in Korea between January 2018 and December 2020. Those with mastectomy without preserving the nipple-areolar complex (NAC), clinical or pathological malignancy in the NAC, inflammatory breast cancer, breast cancer infiltrating the chest wall or skin, metastatic breast cancer, or insufficient medical records were excluded. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to March 2024.

Exposures

M-NSM or C-NSM.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinicopathological factors and postoperative complications within 3 months of surgery were assessed. Statistical analyses, including logistic regression, were used to identify the factors associated with complications.

Results

There were 1356 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.47 [8.56] years) undergoing C-NSM and 227 (mean [SD] age, 45.41 [7.99] years) undergoing M-NSM (35 endoscopy assisted and 192 robot assisted). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding short- and long-term postoperative complications (<30 days: C-NSM, 465 of 1356 [34.29%] vs M-NSM, 73 of 227 [32.16%]; P = .53; <90 days: C-NSM, 525 of 1356 [38.72%] vs M-NSM, 73 of 227 [32.16%]; P = .06). Nipple-areolar complex necrosis was more common in the long term after C-NSM than M-NSM (C-NSM, 91 of 1356 [6.71%] vs M-NSM, 5 of 227 [2.20%]; P = .04). Wound infection occurred more frequently after M-NSM (C-NSM, 58 of 1356 [4.28%] vs M-NSM, 18 of 227 [7.93%]; P = .03). Postoperative seroma occurred more frequently after C-NSM (C-NSM, 193 of 1356 [14.23%] vs M-NSM, 21 of 227 [9.25%]; P = .04). Mild or severe breast ptosis was a significant risk factor for nipple or areolar necrosis (odds ratio [OR], 4.75; 95% CI, 1.66-13.60; P = .004 and OR, 8.78; 95% CI, 1.88-41.02; P = .006, respectively). Conversely, use of a midaxillary, anterior axillary, or axillary incision was associated with a lower risk of necrosis (OR for other incisions, 32.72; 95% CI, 2.11-508.36; P = .01). Necrosis occurred significantly less often in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction compared to other breast reconstructions (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.11-7.34; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

The similar complication rates between C-NSM and M-NSM demonstrates that both methods were equally safe, allowing the choice to be guided by patient preferences and specific needs.

Pilot robotic mastectomy in Singapore (PRoMiSing I) study: first safety and feasibility prospective cohort trial in South East Asia

BACKGROUND

Robotic mastectomy has been performed worldwide since 2015. The advantages of the robotic approach in nipple-sparing mastectomy have been proven with better visualization and preservation of blood supply to the nipple-areolar complex, with a lower incidence of necrosis. It also allows smaller incisions for both mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. To date, no centers in Singapore and Southeast Asia offer robotic mastectomy. We believe that robotic mastectomy is a feasible and safe technique that our population can utilize.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to ascertain the surgical outcomes and perform a learning curve analysis in patients undergoing robotic mastectomy in a multi-ethnic South East Asian population.

METHODS

A single-arm prospective pilot study of eligible patients aged 21-70 years old with early breast cancer or high-risk patients indicated for risk-reducing mastectomy who were eligible and consented to robotic mastectomy were enrolled in this trial from December 22, 2022 to December 15, 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 29 consecutive robotic mastectomies were performed. The mean total operative time was 95±10.2 min. The average blood loss was 5.7±1.9 ml, and the average length of stay was 1.05 days. The mean mastectomy specimen weight was 251 g, and there was no conversion to conventional mastectomy in any case. Furthermore, there were no 30-day morbidity or complications in terms of wound infection requiring intervention, flap, and nipple-areolar complex necrosis, and postoperative hematoma/bleeding requiring intervention.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the current evidence that robotic mastectomy is a safe and feasible option and could prove to be a great alternative to conventional mastectomy. Further prospective trials examining the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic mastectomy will be performed to establish the oncologic safety of this technique in breast cancer treatment.

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.

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.

Clinical status and future prospects of single-incision robotic-assisted surgery: a review

Since the advent of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery, the prosperity of minimally invasive surgery has been thriving on the advancement of endoscopic techniques. Cosmetic superiority, recovery benefits, and noninferior surgical outcomes weigh single-incision laparoscopic surgery as a promising modality. Although there are surgical challenges posed by steep learning curve and technological difficulties, such as instruments collision, triangulation loss and limited retraction, the establishment of robotic surgical platform as a solution to all is inspiring. Furthermore, with enhanced instrument maneuverability and stability, robotic ergonomic innovations adopt the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and surmount its recognized barriers by introducing a novel combination, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery. As was gradually diffused in general surgery and other specialties, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery manifests privileges in noninferior clinical outcomes an satisfactory cosmetic effect among strictly selected patients, and has the potential of a preferable surgical option for minimally invasive surgery.