In pursuit of a flawless aphrodite: paving the way to scarless oncoplastic breast surgery

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.

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.

Robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate microsurgical free flap reconstruction: Feasibility and aesthetic results - Case series

BACKGROUND

The application of robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) has allowed mastectomy to be performed via a small incision. Breast reconstruction with free autologous tissue results in the most natural and long-lasting results, however, its application in R-NSM can be difficult via the small incision and haven't been explored in depth. The purpose of the study was to investigate the feasibility and aesthetic outcome of free perforator flap breast reconstruction via small lateral chest wall incision after R-NSM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients who received R-NSM and free perforator flap reconstruction as the study group and patients who received conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM) and free perforator flap reconstruction as the control group from January 2018 to August 2020 by single reconstructive surgeon. Patient demographic data, complications from both mastectomy and reconstruction, status of resection margin and oncological outcome were reviewed. Aesthetic outcome was evaluated by 9 plastic surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were included of which 22 (34.9%) received R-NSM and 41 (65.1%) received C-NSM. Their demographic data, reconstruction flaps, overall complication rate and follow up time were similar. Unlike C-NSM, majority of the R-NSM groups used the thoracodorsal or lateral thoracic vessels as the recipient vessels. Patients in the R-NSM group has smaller scar and better aesthetic outcome in the symmetry of breast inframammary fold, scar location and visibility, and overall aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSION

Although with difficulty in microvascular anastomosis and flap inset and shaping, R-NSM with perforator flap reconstruction presented with equal surgical and oncological safety with C-NSM and even better aesthetic results.