Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Gel Implant: Technique, Preliminary Results and Patient-Reported Cosmetic Outcome

Endoscopic prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy: First French survey of 10 patients

INTRODUCTION

Current recommendations preconize prophylactic mastectomy for women over 30 with increased risk of breast cancer. Several surgical techniques are available to perform bilateral mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction. Our primary objective was to evaluate the feasibility of the Endoscopic Nipple Sparing Mastectomy (E-NSM) technique, without robotic assistance, using a single axillary incision and with immediate reconstruction using a prepectoral prosthesis in prophylactic indications. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the risks of postoperative complications and the esthetic results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a preliminary report of a prospective single-center interventional clinical study with a final enrolment target of 20 patients. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete surgical procedures per E-NSM. The secondary endpoints were the rate of conversions to conventional surgery, infections, hematomas, skin injury, pain and esthetic results (Breast-Q questionnaire, additional cosmetic procedures).

RESULTS

From April 2019 to June 2022, 10 patients were included for 19 procedures (9 bilateral mastectomies, 1 unilateral). All surgical procedures were complete; no conversion to conventional surgery was required. The rate of complications per procedure requiring revision surgery was 16 % (1 skin necrosis, 1 postoperative hematoma and 1 surgical site infection). No prosthesis was removed. The seroma rate was 5 %. All patients would recommend this technique and were very satisfied or satisfied with the esthetic result. A second cosmetic procedure (lipofilling) was necessary in 50 % of patients.

DISCUSSION

These preliminary data attest to the feasibility and safety of the E-NSM approach, and should be confirmed on a larger cohort and longer-term follow-up.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03838549.

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.

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.

Types of Breast Cancer Surgery and Breast Reconstruction

Background: Breast cancer continues to be a significant diagnostic and therapeutic problem. Mastectomy is still a frequently used treatment method, but its form is changing with progress in medicine. Methods: We have described important types of surgical treatments for breast cancer, such as modified radical mastectomy, breast-conserving surgery, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, and robotic mastectomy. Breast reconstruction is also a very important element of treatment because it directly affects the mental state of patients after the procedure. We have also described types of breast reconstruction, such as implants, acellular dermal matrices, autologous reconstruction, robotic breast reconstruction, and fat grafting. Results: The aim of our study was to compare available types of surgical treatment for breast cancer and breast reconstruction to help tailor personalized treatment to patients.

Early Experience of Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Using Acellular Dermal Matrix after Robot-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

The authors performed a retrospective review to analyze operative outcomes of breast mound reconstruction after robot-assisted mastectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with a robotic device (Da Vinci Xi) and immediate prepectoral prosthetic reconstruction by lateral incision from June of 2018 to July of 2019 were enrolled. Patient characteristics, complications, and satisfaction rates as assessed by BREAST-Q were analyzed. The surgical technique was described in detail.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine cases, including 7 bilateral cases (total 46 breasts), underwent robot-assisted NSM followed by immediate prepectoral prosthetic implant reconstruction. The median patient age was 46.63 years (range, 21 to 63 years). The mean operation time for each prepectoral breast mound reconstruction using the direct-to-implant technique was 126.55 minutes. Robot-assisted reconstruction resulted in superior BREAST-Q scores compared with the conventional reconstruction method. Major infection occurred in 7 cases (15.2%), and complete nipple loss occurred in 3 cases (6.6%). Severe complications requiring breast implant removal occurred in 4 breasts (8.7%). Two cases were due to the coexistence of infection and skin necrosis; in 1 case, the skin flap became congested on postoperative day 3 and required additional surgery to change the expander. Other complications were resolved with conservative care or minor revision.

CONCLUSIONS

This report is the first concerning robot-assisted NSM followed by prepectoral acellular dermal matrix-wrapped prosthetic reconstruction. This procedure was not inferior to other methods. Further prospective research to evaluate oncologic outcomes is warranted.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Evaluation of safety and operative time in tumescent-free robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a retrospective single-center cohort study

Purpose

Tumescent in nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been reported to increase the risk of necrosis by impairing blood flow to the skin flap and nipple-areolar complex. At our institution, we introduced a tumescent-free robotic NSM using the da Vinci single-port system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent tumescent-free robotic NSM between October 2020 and March 2023 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea). Clinicopathological characteristics, adverse events, and operative time were evaluated.

Results

During the study period, 118 patients underwent tumescent-free robotic NSM. Thirty-one patients (26.3%) experienced an adverse event. Five patients (4.2%) were classified as grade III based on the Clavien-Dindo classification and required surgery. The mean total operative time was 467 minutes for autologous tissue reconstruction (n = 49) and 252 minutes for implants (n = 69). No correlation was found between the cumulative number of surgical cases and the breast operative time (P = 0.30, 0.52, 0.59 for surgeons A, B, C) for the 3 surgeons. However, a significant linear relationship (P < 0.001) was observed, with the operative time increasing by 13 minutes for every 100-g increase in specimen weight.

Conclusion

Tumescent-free robotic NSM is a safe procedure with a feasible operative time and few adverse events.

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.

The emerging role of robotics in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The role of robotics has grown exponentially. There is an active interest amongst practitioners in the transferability of the potential benefits into plastic and reconstructive surgery; however, many plastic surgeons report lack of widespread implementation, training, or clinical exposure. We report the current evidence base, and surgical opportunities, alongside key barriers, and limitations to overcome, to develop the use of robotics within the field. This systematic review of PubMed, Medline, and Embase has been conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024524237). Preclinical, educational, and clinical articles were included, within the scope of plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2, 181, articles were screened; 176 articles met the inclusion criteria across lymph node dissection, flap and microsurgery, vaginoplasty, craniofacial reconstruction, abdominal wall reconstruction and transoral robotic surgery (TOR). A number of benefits have been reported including technical advantages such as better visualisation, improved precision and accuracy, and tremor reduction. Patient benefits include lower rate of complications and quicker recovery; however, there is a longer operative duration in some categories. Cost presents a significant barrier to implementation. Robotic surgery presents an exciting opportunity to improve patient outcomes and surgical ease of use, with feasibility for many subspecialities demonstrated in this review. However, further higher quality comparative research with careful case selection, which is adequately powered, as well as the inclusion of cost-analysis, is necessary to fully understand the true benefit for patient care, and justification for resource utilisation.

Emerging Role of Robotic Surgery in the Breast

In recent years, there has been increased adoption of robotic technology in oncologic breast surgery, particularly with the use of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (r-NSM). Here we review the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery in breast procedures, and discuss the safety, limited oncologic outcomes, apparent advantages, and potential limitations of r-NSM compared to conventional open-NSM (c-NSM). Limited data suggests that robotic-assisted surgery offers smaller incisions and potential for improved cosmesis and ergonomic advantage when compared to c-NSM. Similar periprocedural complication rates are seen with r-NSM compared with c-NSM. Short-term oncologic follow-up is reassuring however, but remains early and continues to be investigated. The increased cost of r-NSM compared to open surgery and feasibility of widespread adoption of the procedure are important considerations that need to be evaluated. Randomized trials are currently ongoing to address the apparent advantages, oncologic outcomes, and cost/feasibility of robotic breast surgery.

Endoscopic mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction with fat grafting for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic mastectomy has been associated with good tolerance and enhanced patient satisfaction, limitations such as the implant or flap size for reconstruction with small incisions remain unresolved. Fat grafting (FG) can expand tissue volume with pinhole skin incisions. Herein, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mastectomy followed by immediate FG.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic mastectomy with immediate FG reconstruction from 2015 to 2021 were retrospectively evaluated to establish surgical outcomes and prognosis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients with clinical stage 0 or I breast cancer underwent unilateral endoscopic mastectomy with immediate FG. The median age was 45 years (41-55), and the median body mass index was 19.3 kg/m2 (15.8-26.6). Endoscopically performed procedures included skin-sparing mastectomies in 18 patients (78%) and nipple-sparing mastectomies in five patients (22%). The median procedure duration was 295 min (242-346). The median specimen weight was 133 g (71-334), and the median grafted fat volume was 200 mL (136-320). No patient required reoperation or additional procedures for complications. One patient experienced recurrence at a median follow-up of 56.1 months and underwent resection; the patient was alive without recurrence 54 months post-resection.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of endoscopic mastectomy with immediate FG for reconstruction. When compared with other immediate autologous reconstructions, our strategy could minimize the skin incision and procedure duration, as well as limit complications. Further prospective investigations are needed to evaluate oncological safety, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

Scarless totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: Surgical technique, preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-reported outcome in 125 breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Minimal-access (endoscopic or robotic-assisted) breast surgery has been increasingly performed and shown better cosmetic results. However, location of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) for systemic treatment at anterior chest may compromise its aesthetic benefits. Therefore, we proposed a new scarless technique for TIVAP implantation, and reported the preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-surveyed outcome.

METHODS

Surgical technique of the new "scarless" TIVAP implantation was proposed. Patients receiving this procedure in a single institution were included. The preliminary results of the scarless TIVAP implantation, learning curve, and patient-reported outcome were analyzed and reported.

RESULTS

A total of 125 breast cancer patients received scarless TIVAP procedures were enrolled. The primary success rate of the scarless TIVAP implantation was 100%. Mean operative time was 46 ± 14 min. Mean amount of blood loss was 8.5 ± 3.2 ml. The cumulative sum plot showed operation time significantly decreased after 24th cases. In the initial learning phase, the mean operative time was 55 ± 17 min, and decreased to 43 ± 12 min in the later mature phase (P = 0.003). There were 5 (4%) complications detected, which included 1 (0.8%) seroma formation, 2 (1.6%) revisions, and 2 (1.6%) unplanned explantations. From patients-evaluated questionnaires, more than 90% of responders were satisfied with aesthetic results, experience during surgery, and application of scarless TIVAP for systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The scarless TIVAP implantation is a safe & reliable procedure with high patients-reported aesthetic satisfaction, and could be an alternative TIVAP procedure for patients requiring chemotherapy and desiring a less noticeable scar.

Is minimal-accessed (endoscopic- or robotic-assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy contraindicated for large breasts?

BACKGROUND

In the developmental stage of minimal-accessed nipple-sparing mastectomy (MA-NSM), selecting patients with small to medium-sized breasts was common for better cosmetic outcomes and oncological safety. However, the suitability of MA-NSM for large, ptotic breasts remained uncertain. This retrospective study aim to assess MA-NSM outcomes in patients with large breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients receiving conventional NSM (C-NSM) and MA-NSM from January 2011 to September 2022, at a single institution. We analyzed perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes based on breast specimen size, classified as small (≤300 g), medium (>300-450 g), large (>450-600 g), and very large (>600 g).

RESULTS

A total of 728 patients was enrolled. C-NSM was performed in 51% (371/728) of cases, while MA-NSM was done in 49% (357/728). The overall complication rate of MA-NSM was comparable to C-NSM (p = 0.573), but severe complications (Clavien-Dindo, CD III) was significantly reported more following C-NSM, regardless of breast size. During a median follow-up of 52 months, no significant difference in oncological outcomes was observed. Comparing MA-NSM and C-NSM outcomes in large-very large breasts (>450 g), MA-NSM demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p = 0.036) and lower incidence of severe complications (CD ≥ III) compared to C-NSM (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

MA-NSM is feasible for large breasts and offers benefits by reducing blood loss and decreasing the incidence of severe complications (CD ≥ III) in this patient group.

An Innovative and Highly Efficient Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-/Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Dual-Plane Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study from a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

The difficulty in creating and maintaining a stable workspace of the breast makes endoscopic nipple-/skin-spring mastectomy (E-N/SSM) develop slowly. This study aims to report the preliminary results of a novel endoscopic technique for N/SSM followed by dual-plane direct-to-implant (DP-DTI) breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was reviewed that included patients who underwent single-axillary-incision E-N/SSM and DP-DTI breast reconstruction from September 2020 to April 2021 at a single institution by three surgeons. The data were collected prospectively and analyzed to determine the efficacy, feasibility, safety, and esthetic results of the operation, as well as quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 68 E-N/SSM and DP-DTI reconstruction procedures through a single axillary incision were performed in 63 female patients. Among all the procedures, the majority were performed for grade 1-3 ptotic breasts (n =46, 73.0%). During the median follow-up of 26.5 months, the major and minor surgical complication rates were 1.6% (1/63) and 9.5% (6/63), respectively. The cosmetic complication rate was 14.3%. One patient suffered local recurrence 4 months postoperation. The average scores in patient-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperation of satisfaction with breast (66.57), psychosocial well-being (75.93) and sexual well-being (56.29) were not significantly different compared with the baseline, except for physical well-being: chest (69.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed procedure for E-N/SSM and DP-DTI breast reconstruction is feasible, time-saving and safe with good outcomes in terms of cosmetic results and QoL and expands the indications of DTI reconstruction to ptotic breasts, making it easier to popularize.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

Patient-reported outcomes of mesh in minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) immediate subpectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although there is increasing interest in minimally invasive prosthesis breast reconstruction (PBR), whether meshes application in minimally invasive PBR can improve complications and cosmetic effects remains controversial. The author retrospectively analyzed postoperative complications and evaluated patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in minimally invasive PBR with and without mesh.

METHODS

This study enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) followed by PBR. We used the TiLOOP bra for the mesh-assisted procedure. Patient demographics and postoperative complications data were compared between the procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Breast-Q.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients underwent 160 minimally invasive NSM-PBR (with mesh, n = 64; without, n = 94). Postoperative complications were comparable in the mesh-assisted (5 [7.7%]) and non-mesh-assisted (5 [5.3%]) groups (p = 0.533). The most common complication in non-mesh-assisted group was infection, with four (4.2%) cases. In mesh-assisted group, implant exposure occurred in two (3.1%) patients. Removal of prosthesis was uncommon, with two (3.1%) and three (3.2%) cases in the mesh-assisted and non-mesh groups, respectively (p = 0.977). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was completed by 52 (81.3%) patients in the mesh-assisted group and 68 (72.3%) in the non-mesh-assisted group. Comparing the non-mesh group, patients in mesh-assisted group had improved scores on the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with breast (66.0) (p < 0.05), Physical Well-being (80.0), and Sexual Well-being (56.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-assisted minimally invasive NSM-PBR has good aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the mesh-assisted and non-mesh-assisted groups.

Six steps for a successful aesthetic free flap reconstruction after minimally invasive mastectomy: a retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer treatment has evolved to the modern skin-sparing mastectomy and nipple-sparing mastectomy. To better perform these surgeries, minimally invasive techniques using the endoscope, or Da Vinci Robotic Surgery platform have been developed. The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the gold standard in breast reconstruction, but it is still not commonly performed after minimally invasive mastectomy due technical difficulty. Here the authors introduced six key steps to a successful aesthetic autologous free flap reconstruction in in minimally invasive mastectomies.

METHODS

There are six main steps to our technique: placement of mastectomy incision, precise flap design after angiography studies, trial of shaping, transcutaneous medial suture, footprint recreation and postoperative shaping with bra. Between November 2018 and July 2022, a total of 67 immediate breast reconstructions using free perforator flaps were performed in 63 patients after minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy.

RESULTS

The results from the minimally invasive mastectomy group were compared with a group of conventional mastectomy patients ( n= 41) performed during the same period. There were no significant differences in flap exploration rates. One hundred percent of the flaps survived. In the minimally invasive group, the final scar was placed in the lateral region, where it would be hidden from the anterior view. Only 70.7% of the conventional mastectomy group could achieve a hidden lateral scar ( P <0.001). The aesthetic revision rates were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSION

With attention to the six steps above, autologous free flap reconstruction can be offered reliably in the setting of minimally invasive mastectomy.

Gasless endoscopic transaxillary subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants (GETSMIRI) for breast cancer: Lei's five-step method

Background

Endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) is a promising procedure in the treatment of breast cancer, but the limitations of endoscopic tools and intrinsic technical complexity of the technique hinder its applicability. Here, we introduce a novel surgery, gasless endoscopic transaxillary subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants (GETSMIRI), for breast cancer. and early effects.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 11 female patients, aged 50 (27-78) years, admitted to our hospital from January to December 2022, who underwent gasless endoscopic transaxillary subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants (GETSMIRI), was conducted. This study was designed to assess patient satisfaction before and after breast reconstruction, early complications, and breast function.

Results

The tumors were all solitary, with a mean maximum diameter of 1.0 (0-2.0) cm and a mean distance of 2.3 (2-4) cm from the nipple, the mean intraoperative bleeding volume was 47.5 mL, and the mean hospital stay was 1.5 d. Postoperatively, 1 patient developed depigmentation of the nipple due to mild ischemia. There were no incisional complications, subcutaneous emphysema, infection, areola necrosis, skin flap necrosis, or removal of the prosthesis and/or patch. No tumor recurrence or metastasis was observed during the follow-up period. The difference between breast satisfaction and psychosocial health scores was not statistically significant (P = 0.680; P = 0.612).

Conclusion

GETSMIRI, immediate implantable breast reconstruction, is less invasive than other such procedures, and short-term follow-up results show good postoperative satisfaction, making it an alternative surgical method.

Postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of robotic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, with remarkable advances in early diagnosis, systemic treatments, and surgical techniques. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been trialled; however, the complication rates, surgical outcomes, and oncological safety of this approach remain obscure.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted from conception until September 2022. Studies examining complications and operative variables where robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy was compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy were included. Primary study outcomes were complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III complications, skin or nipple necrosis, seroma, haematoma, infection, implant loss, and wound dehiscence) and oncological safety (recurrence and positive margins). The secondary outcomes included operative variables, length of stay, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, and aesthetic outcome.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies of overall fair quality, involving 1674 patients, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Grade 3 complications were reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy without statistical significance (OR 0.60 (95 per cent c.i. 0.35 to 1.05)). Nipple necrosis was significantly reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (OR 0.54 (95 per cent c.i. 0.30 to 0.96); P = 0.03; I2 = 15 per cent). Operating time (mean difference +58.81 min (95 per cent c.i. +28.19 to +89.44 min); P = 0.0002) and length of stay (mean difference +1.23 days (95 per cent c.i. +0.64 to +1.81 days); P < 0.0001) were significantly increased in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, whereas the opposite was true for blood loss (mean difference -53.18 ml (95 per cent c.i. -71.78 to -34.58 ml); P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Whilst still in its infancy, robotic breast surgery may become a viable option in breast surgery. Nonetheless, the oncological safety of this approach requires robust assessment.

Robotic Versus Conventional or Endoscopic-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Prospectively Designed Multicenter Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, and Patient-reported Outcomes (RCENSM-P)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of minimal access and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM). The secondary outcomes investigated included medical costs and oncological safety.

BACKGROUND

Minimal-access NSM has been increasingly applied in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. However, prospective multicenter trials comparing robotic-assisted NSM (R-NSM) versus C-NSM or endoscopic-assisted NSM (E-NSM) are lacking.

METHODS

A prospectively designed 3-arm multicenter, nonrandomized trial (NCT04037852) was conducted from October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, to compare R-NSM with C-NSM or E-NSM.

RESULTS

A total of 73 R-NSM, 74 C-NSM, and 84 E-NSM procedures were enrolled. The median wound length and operation time of C-NSM was (9 cm, 175 minutes), (4 cm, and 195 minutes) in R-NSM, and (4 cm and 222 minutes) in E-NSM. Complications were comparable among the groups. Better wound healing was observed in the minimal-access NSM group. The R-NSM procedure was 4000 and 2600 United States Dollars more expensive than C-NSM and E-NSM, respectively. Wound/scar and postoperative acute pain evaluation favored the use of minimal access NSM over C-NSM. Quality of life in terms of chronic breast/chest pain, mobility, and range of motion of the upper extremity showed no significant differences. The preliminary oncologic results showed no differences among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

R-NSM or E-NSM is a safe alternative if compared with C-NSM in terms of perioperative morbidities, especially with better wound healing. The advantage of minimal access groups was higher wound-related satisfaction. Higher costs remain one of the major limiting factors in the widespread adoption of R-NSM.

Robotics in Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer: A Perspective View

This perspective article aims to summarize and provide an outlook for developments around the use of robotics in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. We searched existing literature on the design and development of new systems and the current use of pre-existing surgical robotic systems. Robotic interventions for breast palpation and biopsy under ultrasound and MRI guidance are being developed and tested on simulated breast phantoms. Results are comparable to those achieved by clinicians; however, there are yet to be any human trials. Existing robotic surgical systems have been evaluated in human trials to perform nipple-sparing mastectomy and harvesting of autologous tissue for breast reconstruction. Results are comparable to traditional NSM and demonstrate positive short-term outcomes for patients. Robotic devices could revolutionize the clinical workflow around breast cancer through less invasive surgery, greater accuracy in biopsies and microsurgery and a potential reduction in clinicians' workload. However, more research into the practical deployment of these devices and concrete scientific evidence of better patient outcomes is needed.

Transaxillary Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Not: A Comparative Study with Analysis of Surgical Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In most cases, transaxillary single-port endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (E-NSM-IIBR) is conducted in patients with early-stage breast cancer, ensuring surgical safety while achieving improved breast aesthetics. However, whether E-NSM-IIBR is appropriate in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to report the surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of breast cancer patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with NAC in comparison to those who did not receive NAC.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with or without NAC at a single center between January 2021 and July 2022. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, and PROs evaluated using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire were compared between the two groups. Factors associated with PROs at 9 months after surgery were assessed with linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR were included in the study, with 27 patients receiving NAC and 65 patients not receiving NAC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. The BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire was completed by 24 out of 27 patients (88.9%) in the NAC group and 59 out of 65 patients (90.8%) in the non-NAC group at 9 months after surgery. The patient-reported outcomes in various domains of the BREAST-Q did not show a significant difference between the two cohorts. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that in the both groups age (β = - 0.985, 95% CI - 1.598 to - 0.371, p = 0.003 in the NAC group; β = - 0.510, - 1.011 to - 0.009, p = 0.046 in the non-NAC group) and rippling (β = - 21.862, - 36.768 to - 6.955, p = 0.006 in the NAC group; β = - 7.787, - 15.151 to - 0.423, p = 0.039 in the non-NAC group) significantly impacted the patients' satisfaction with breasts, and PMRT was negatively associated with patients' physical well-being of chest (β = - 13.813, - 26.962 to - 0.664, p = 0.040 in the NAC group; β = - 18.574, - 30.661 to - 6.487, p = 0.003 in the non-NAC group). Our findings revealed that patients with larger implant volumes had higher scores in psychosocial well-being (β = 0.082, 0.001 to 0.162, p = 0.047), whereas implant displacement (β = - 14.937, - 28.175 to - 1.700, p=0.028) had a negative impact on patients' psychological well-being in the non-NAC group. However, our results did not demonstrate any significant influencing factors on patients' psychosocial well-being within the NAC group.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experiences confirm that E-NSM-IIBR is a safe option for selected patients even after NAC, with favorable patient-reported outcomes comparable with those in the primary surgery setting. The postoperative long-term outcomes of patients who undergo radiation therapy after NAC merit further investigation in the future.

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 .

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.

Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple/skin-sparing mastectomy followed by subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Technique, clinical outcomes, and aesthetic results from 88 preliminary procedures

BACKGROUND

Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy overcomes the limitations of conventional endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy application. We introduce this technique and report the preliminary results of this study.

METHODS

Patients who received single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy from May 2020 to May 2022 were enrolled from a single institution. Data were analyzed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this technique. Patient-reported and surgeon-reported cosmetic outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 68 patients who underwent 88 single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy combined with subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction were enrolled in the current study. The overall complication rate was 10.3%. In total, 2.9% of patients suffered from major complications, and 5 (7.4%) experienced minor complications. Only 1 patient experienced partial nipple-areola complex necrosis. During a median follow-up time of 24 months, the locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis rate was both 1.6%. In the surgeon-reported cosmetic results, 92.1% of patients achieved good or excellent results. The mean SCAR-Q scores were 82.07 ± 8.86, and 85.3% evaluated their breasts as good or excellent. The mean overall cost was 5,670.4 ± 1,351.3 USD. The total mean operation time and maturity-stage mean operation time were 234.3 ± 80.4 and 172.55 ± 41.29 min, respectively. According to cumulative sum plot analysis, approximately 18 cases were needed for surgeons to decrease their operation time significantly and complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe, less expensive, and efficient surgical technique with reliable intermediate-term oncologic safety. For suitable candidates, the technique with subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction can provide a good cosmetic outcome.

Robotics in Implant-Based and Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction continues to evolve as new technology and mastectomy techniques become available. Robotic-assisted breast reconstruction represents a growing field within plastic surgery, with the potential to improve aesthetic and functional outcomes, as well as patient satisfaction. This article provides a review of indications, techniques, and outcome data supporting the use of robotic assistance in both implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction from surgeons around the world.

Robotic-Assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

Minimally invasive approaches to breast surgery have evolved from endoscopic techniques to recent developments in robotic-assisted mastectomies. Initial studies on robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) have shown improved patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes with similar complication rates and oncological outcomes in selected patients. This chapter reviews techniques used and available data on complications and clinical outcomes for RNSM. Currently, RNSM is an investigational technique in the United States and should be performed in clinical trials with U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval to rigorously evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this approach.

Controversies and strengths of robot-assisted mastectomy

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is used to improve cosmetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety in patients with early breast cancer; however, NSM requires a higher level of skill and workload than mastectomy and is associated with long, visible scars. Robotic surgical systems reduce surgeon workload and facilitate precise surgery. Considering the increasing support of robot-assisted NSM (RNSM), this paper aims to discuss the current controversies based on the research findings reported thus far. There are four concerns regarding RNSM; increased cost, oncological outcomes, the level of experience and skill, and standardization. It should be noted that RNSM is not a surgery performed on all patients but rather a procedure performed on selected patients who meet specific indications. A large-scale randomized clinical trial comparing robotic and conventional NSM has recently begun in Korea; therefore, it is necessary to wait for these results for more insight into oncological outcomes. Although the level of experience and skill required for robotic mastectomy may not be easily achieved by all surgeons, the learning curve for RNSM appears manageable and can be overcome with appropriate training and practice. Training programs and standardization efforts will help improve the overall quality of RNSM. There are some advantages to RNSM. The robotic system provides improved precision and accuracy, helping remove breast tissue more effectively. RNSM has advantages such as smaller scars, less blood loss, and a lower rate of surgical complications. Patients who undergo RNSM report better quality of life.

Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Evaluating Residual Breast Tissue After Robotic-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Women With Early Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Prospective studies on postoperative residual breast tissue (RBT) after robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) for breast cancer are limited. RBT presents an unknown risk of local recurrence or the development of new cancer after curative or risk-reducing mastectomies. This study investigated the technical feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate RBT after R-NSM in women with breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective pilot study, 105 patients, who underwent R-NSM for breast cancer at Changhua Christian Hospital between March 2017 and May 2022, were subjected to postoperative breast MRI to evaluate the presence and location of RBT. The postoperative MRI scans of 43 patients (age, 47.8 ± 8.5 years), with existing preoperative MRI scans, were evaluated for the presence and location of RBT. In total, 54 R-NSM procedures were performed. In parallel, we reviewed the literature on RBT after nipple-sparing mastectomy, considering its prevalence.

RESULTS

RBT was detected in 7 (13.0%) of the 54 mastectomies (6 of the 48 therapeutic mastectomies and 1 of the 6 prophylactic mastectomies). The most common location for RBT was behind the nipple-areolar complex (5 of 7 [71.4%]). Another RBT was found in the upper inner quadrant (2 of 7 [28.6%]). Among the six patients who underwent RBT after therapeutic mastectomies, one patient developed a local recurrence of the skin flap. The other five patients with RBT after therapeutic mastectomies remained disease-free.

CONCLUSION

R-NSM, a surgical innovation, does not seem to increase the prevalence of RBT, and breast MRI showed feasibility as a noninvasive imaging tool for evaluating the presence and location of RBT.

Robot-assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy: Recent Advancements and Ongoing Controversies

Purpose of review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent technical advancements in RNSM, describe the ongoing teaching programs, and discuss the ongoing controversies.

Recent findings

Robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RNSM) is the newest addition to the armamentarium of surgical techniques for patients who require a mastectomy. The potential benefits of using the da Vinci® Robotic Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) are the small 3D camera and lighting offering superior visualization, the Endowrist robotic instruments offering greater range of motion, and surgeon being at a seated position at the console rendering a more ergonomic operating position.

Summary

RNSM can potentially help overcome the technical difficulties of performing a conventional NSM. Further studies are needed to elucidate the oncologic safety and cost-effectiveness of RNSM.

Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeon performance and impact on breast reconstructions: Clinical outcomes, learning curve, and patients' satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Compared to mastectomy alone, the addition of breast reconstruction could improve quality of life and it is usually performed by two-team approach, which consisted of both breast surgeons and plastic surgeons. This study aims to illustrate the positive impacts of the dual-trained oncoplastic reconstructive breast surgeon (ORBS) and reveal the factors influencing reconstruction rates.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 542 breast cancer patients who undergone mastectomy with reconstruction performed by a particular ORBS between January 2011 and December 2021 at a single institution. Clinical and oncological outcomes, impact of case accumulation on performance and patient-reported aesthetic satisfactions were analyzed and reported. Furthermore, in this study 1851 breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy combined with or without breast reconstructions, which included 542 performed by ORBS, were reviewed to identify factors affecting breast reconstructions.

RESULTS

Among the 524 breast reconstructions performed by the ORBS, 73.6% were gel implant reconstructions, 2.7% were tissue expanders, 19.5% were transverse rectus abdominal myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, 2.7% were latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps, 0.8% were omentum flaps, and 0.8% involved LD flaps and implants. There was no total flap loss in the 124 autologous reconstructions, and the implant loss rate was 1.2% (5/403). Patient-reported aesthetic evaluations showed that 95% of the patients were satisfied. As the ORBS's accumulated case experiences, the implant loss rate decreased, and the overall satisfaction rate increased. According to the cumulative sum plot learning curve analysis, it took 58 procedures for the ORBS to shorten the operative time. In multivariate analysis, younger age, MRI, nipple sparing mastectomy, ORBS, and high-volume surgeon were factors related to breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrated that a breast surgeon after adequate training could become an ORBS and perform mastectomies with various types of breast reconstruction with acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes for breast cancer patients. ORBSs could increase breast reconstruction rates, which remain low worldwide.

Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic and Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction: International Multicenter Pooled Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) has been developed to reduce conspicuous scar and increase the quality of life in women. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic outcomes of RNSM with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This international multicenter, pooled analysis of individual patient-level data enrolled a total of 755 procedures in 659 women (609 had breast cancer and 50 underwent risk-reducing mastectomy) who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with IBR. Surgical and oncologic outcomes, including 30-days postoperative (POD 30d) complication rate, nipple necrosis rate, grade of Clavien-Dindo classification, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were evaluated. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed to adjust for confounding factors.

RESULTS

The median age of both the RNSM and CNSM groups was 45 years. The RNSM group had lower body mass index (BMI) and a higher proportion of benign disease compared with the CNSM group. POD 30d complications and postoperative complication grade III rates were lower in the RNSM group than in the CNSM group (p < 0.05). The nipple necrosis rate was 2.2% and 7.8% for RNSM and CNSM, respectively (p = 0.002). After propensity score matching, significantly lower rates of POD 30d complications, nipple necrosis, and postoperative complication grade III occurred in the RNSM group than in the CNSM group (all p < 0.05). Oncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RNSM can provide better cosmetic results with favorable surgical and oncologic outcomes for women with early breast cancer or BRCA mutation.

Robot-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction: An initial Experience of the Korea Robot-endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to present the results of early experience of robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RANSM).

BACKGROUND

RANSM improves cosmetic outcomes over conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy. However, data on the feasibility and safety of the RANSM are limited.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RANSM with immediate breast reconstruction as part of the Korea Robot-endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) from November 2016 to January 2020 were enrolled. clinicopathologic characteristics, perioperative complications, and operation time were collected.

RESULTS

Overall, 73 women underwent 82 RANSM procedures conducted by 11 breast surgeons at 8 institutions. The median patient age was 45.5 years old (20-66 years), and 52 (63.4%) patients were premenopausal. Invasive breast cancer was noted in 55 cases (40 cases were stage i, 11 cases were stage ii, and 4 cases were stage iii, respectively) and ductal carcinoma in-situ was recorded in 20 cases. Of those, 3 patients with BRCA1/2 mutation carriers underwent contralateral risk-reducing RANSM. The median length of hospitalization was 12.0 days (5.0-24.0 days). The incision location was the mid-axillary line and the median incision length was 50.0 mm (30.0-60.0 mm). Median total operation time, median total mastectomy time, and median reconstruction time was 307.0 minutes (163.0-796.0 minutes), 189.5 minutes (97.5-325.0 minutes), and 119.5 minutes (45.0-689.0 minutes). Only 2 cases (2.5%) required reoperation. Nipple ischemia was found in 9 cases (10.9%) but only 1 case (1.2%) required nipple excision given that 8 cases (9.7%) resolved spontaneously. Skin ischemia was observed in 5 cases (6.1%) and only 2 (2.4%) cases needed skin excision whereas 3 cases (3.6%) resolved spontaneously. There was no conversion to open surgery orcases of mortality. The mean time for mastectomy among surgeons who performed more than 10 cases was 182.3 minutes (± 53.7, minutes) and 195.4 minutes (± 50.4, minutes).

CONCLUSION

This was the first report of RANSM conducted in the KoREa-BSG. RANSM is technically feasible and acceptable with a short learning curve. Further prospective research to evaluate surgical and oncologic outcomes is needed.

Transcutaneous medial fixation sutures for free flap inset after robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy

The application of minimal invasive mastectomy has allowed surgeons to perform nipplesparing mastectomy via a shorter, inconspicuous incision under clear vision and with more precise hemostasis. However, it poses new challenges in microsurgical breast reconstruction, such as vascular anastomosis and flap insetting, which are considerably more difficult to perform through the shorter incision on the lateral breast border. We propose an innovative technique of transcutaneous medial fixation sutures to help in flap insetting and creating and maintaining the medial breast border. The sutures are placed after mastectomy and before flap transfer. Three 4-0 nylon suture loops are placed transcutaneously and into the pocket at the markings of the preferred lower medial border of the reconstructed breast. After microvascular anastomosis and temporary shaping of the flap on top of the mastectomy skin, the three corresponding points for the sutures are identified. The three nylon loops are then sutured to the dermis of the corresponding medial point of the flap. The flap is placed into the pocket by a simultaneous gentle pull on the three sutures and a combined lateral push. The stitches are then tied and buried after completion of flap inset.

Impact of Body Composition on Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC)-related complications are common during nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), with obesity as a risk factor. Although the incidence of NAC-related complications after robotic NSM (RNSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is lower than that after conventional NSM, it remains one of the most unwanted complications. We aimed to evaluate body composition-based risk factors for NAC-related complications after RNSM with IBR. Data of 92 patients with breast cancer who underwent RNSM with IBR using direct-to-implant or tissue expander from November 2017 to September 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Risk factors for NAC-related complications were identified with a focus on body composition using preoperative transverse computed tomography at the third lumbar vertebra level. Postoperative complications were assessed for 6 months. The most common complication was NAC ischemia, occurring in 15 patients (16%). Multivariate analysis revealed a low skeletal muscle index/total adipose tissue index (SMI/TATI) ratio as an independent NAC ischemia risk factor. An increase in the SMI/TATI ratio by one decreased the incidence of NAC ischemia by 0.940-fold (p = 0.030). A low SMI/TATI ratio is a risk factor for postoperative NAC ischemia in patients undergoing RNSM with IBR for breast cancer. Preoperative body composition-focused evaluation is more valuable than simple body mass index assessment.

Minimal Access (Endoscopic and Robotic) Breast Surgery in the Surgical Treatment of Early Breast Cancer-Trend and Clinical Outcome From a Single-Surgeon Experience Over 10 Years

Objective

Endoscopic assisted breast surgery (EABS) or robotic assisted breast surgery (RABS) performed through minimal axillary and/or peri-areolar incisions has become the representative of minimal access breast surgery (MABS). We report the trend and clinical outcome of MABS for treatment of breast cancer.

Methods

Information on patients who underwent breast cancer operation by the principal investigator during the period of 2011 to 2020 was collected from a single institute for analysis. The clinical outcome, trend, and cost of MABS were analyzed and compared with conventional breast surgery (CBS).

Results

A total of 824 breast cancer patients operated by a single surgeon were enrolled in this study: 254 received CBS and 570 received MABS, namely, 476 EABS and 94 RABS. From 2011 to 2020, the number of MABS performed annually has shown an increasing trend. Compared with CBS, MABS such as breast conserving surgery and nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) have effectively reduced wound scar length. Since the sequential uprise from conventional NSM (C-NSM), dual-axillary-areolar-incision two dimensional (2D) endoscopic assisted NSM (E-NSM), single-axillary-incision E-NSM, robotic assisted NSM (R-NSM), and single-port 3D E-NSM, the development of minimal access mastectomies increasingly paralleled with NSM. The operation time of various MABS decreased significantly and showed no statistical difference compared with CBS. R-NSM was associated with highest cost, followed by 3D E-NSM, E-NSM, and C-NSM. The positive surgical margin rate and local recurrence rate of MABS and CBS were not statistically different.

Conclusion

MABS showed comparable clinical outcome and preliminary oncologic safety as CBS and has been increasingly performed as the surgical treatment of breast cancer, especially minimal access NSM.

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy complication rate compared to traditional nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Breast cancer is worldwide the most common cause of cancer in women and causes the second most common cancer-related death. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is commonly used in therapeutic and prophylactic settings. Furthermore, (preventive) mastectomies are, besides complications, also associated with psychological and cosmetic consequences. Robotic NSM (RNSM) allows for better visualization of the planes and reducing the invasiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative complication rate of RNSM to NSM. A systematic search was performed on all (R)NSM articles. The primary outcome was determining the overall postoperative complication rate of traditional NSM and RNSM. Secondary outcomes were comparing the specific postoperative complication rates: implant loss, hematoma, (flap)necrosis, infection, and seroma. Forty-nine studies containing 13,886 cases of (R)NSM were included. No statistically significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications (RNSM 3.9%, NSM 7.0%, p = 0.070), postoperative implant loss (RNSM 4.1%, NSM 3.2%, p = 0.523), hematomas (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.059), necrosis (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 7.4%, p = 0.230), infection (RNSM 8.3%, NSM 4.0%, p = 0.054) or seromas (RNSM 3.0%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.421). Overall, there are no statistically significant differences in complication rates between NSM and RNSM.

A Randomized Trial of Robotic Mastectomy versus Open Surgery in Women With Breast Cancer or BRCA Mutation

Objective

To compare robotic mastectomy with open classical technique outcomes in breast cancer patients.

Summary Background Data

As the use of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy continues to rise, improved understanding of the surgical, oncologic and quality of life outcomes is imperative for appropriate patient selection as well as to better understand indications, limits, advantages and dangers.

Methods

In a phase III, open label, single center, randomized controlled trial involving 80 women with breast cancer (69) or with BRCA mutation (11), we compared the outcome of robotic and open nipple sparing mastectomy. Primary outcomes were surgical complications and quality of life using specific validated questionnaires. Secondary objective included oncologic outcomes.

Results

Robotic procedure was 1 hour and 18 minutes longer than open (P < 0.001). No differences in the number or type of complications (P = 0.11) were observed. Breast-Q scores in satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial, physical and sexual well-being were significantly higher after robotic mastectomy vs open procedure. Respect to baseline, physical and sexual well-being domains remained stable after robotic mastectomy while they significantly decreased after open procedure (P<= 0.02). The overall Body Image Scale questionnaire score was 20.7 +/- 13.8 vs. 9.9 +/- 5.1 in the robotic vs open groups respectively, P < 0.0001. At median follow-up 28.6 months (range 3.7-43.3), no local events were observed.

Conclusions

Complications were similar among groups upholding the robotic technique to be safe. Quality of life was maintained after robotic mastectomy while significantly decrease after open surgery. Early follow up confirm no premature local failure. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03440398.

Current Trends in and Indications for Endoscopy-Assisted Breast Surgery for Breast Cancer

Endoscopic oncoplastic breast surgery represents a minimal invasive approach with the aim of both safe excision of cancer and preserving the breast shape. It has less noticeable scar, excellent cosmetic outcomes, high patient satisfaction rate. Recently, relative long-term follow-up results have been reported to be very safe (Soybir and Fukuma, J Breast Health 11:52-58, 2015; Fan et al., Chin Med J 122:2945-2950, 2009; Jiang, Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 45:439-441, 2007).Operative techniques for both endoscopic breast-conserving surgery and endoscopic nipple/areola/skin-sparing mastectomy have been described in detail. Two different working planes in which one of them is subcutaneous and the other one is sub-mammary planes are being used during the surgery. Surgical technique needs some instruments such as endoscopic retractor, light guided specific mammary retractor, wound protector, and energy device such as bipolar scissor, Harmonic Scalpel, LigaSure, Thunderbeat. Endoscopic breast retractors provide magnified visualization and extensive posterior dissection facility. Tunneling method and the hydro-dissection simplify the technique in the subcutaneous field (Soybir and Fukuma, J Breast Health 11:52-58, 2015; Fan et al., Chin Med J 122:2945-2950, 2009). Oncoplastic reconstruction techniques are also applied after the tumor resection by endoscopic method. The complication rate of endoscopic breast surgery is similar with the rate of open breast surgery. Quite successful local recurrence, distant metastasis, and overall survival rates have been declared. However, it looks reasonable to wait for the results with longer follow-up before having a judgement about oncologic efficiency and safety of the endoscopic breast cancer surgery (Tamaki et al., Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 103(11):835-838, 2002; Leff et al., Breast Cancer Res Treat 125(3):607-625, 2011; Fukuma, Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 116(5):316-319, 2015).Recently some surgeons reported about robotic nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with Gel implant procedure. Nevertheless, experience with application of a robotic surgery platform in the management of breast cancer is limited. From the preliminary experiences, R-NSM and IBR with Gel implant is a safe procedure, with good cosmetic results, and could be a promising new technique for breast cancer patients indicated for mastectomy (Lai et al., Ann Surg Oncol 26(1):42-52, 2019).

Single-Port Three-Dimensional (3D) Videoscope-Assisted Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in the Management of Breast Cancer: Technique, Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, Learning Curve, and Patient-Reported Aesthetic Results from 80 Preliminary Procedures

BACKGROUND

The preliminary results of an innovative surgical technique, which incorporated single-port three-dimensional (3D) videoscope and instruments for endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM), were reported.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent single-port 3D E-NSM for breast cancer from August 2018 to September 2020 were analyzed, and the preliminary outcome of this procedure as well as the patient-reported aesthetic results are described in this article.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 70 patients who received 80 procedures of single-port 3D E-NSM. The mean operation time was 158 ± 36 min, and the mean blood loss was 41 ± 26 ml. Three procedures (3.8 %) associated with delayed axillary wound-healing, eight cases of transient nipple ischemia (10 %), three cases of partial nipple ischemia/necrosis (3.7 %), and one case of total nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis (1.3 %) were observed. No patient had margin involvement. Satisfaction rates of approximately 90 % were observed in terms of postoperative scar appearance, location, and length. Most of the patients (87.8 %) reported that they would choose the same operation again if given the chance to do so. The overall cost of a single-port 3D E-NSM was 7522 ± 470 U.S. dollars. According to cumulative sum (CUSUM) plot analysis, about 14 cases were needed for surgeons to familiarize themselves with single-port 3D E-NSM and immediate gel implant reconstruction and to decrease their operation time significantly in the initial learning phase.

CONCLUSION

Single-port 3D E-NSM, a safe, efficient, lower-cost procedure, is associated with a good aesthetic result. It is a promising new technique for breast cancer patients indicated for mastectomy, but long-term oncologic safety follow-up evaluation still is needed.

Minimally Invasive Mastectomy Could Achieve Non-inferior Oncological Outcome in Appropriately Selected Patients: Propensity Matched Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive mastectomy (MIM) was emerged as an approach to decrease morbidity and increase patient satisfaction through improved cosmetic results; however, there is a paucity of data regarding the long-term oncologic outcomes of these minimally invasive approaches.

METHODS

Patients who underwent mastectomy procedures were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). Patients were categorized as MIM or open mastectomy. A 1:1 propensity match was performed to balance the bias on reconstruction, nipple sparing, lymph node procedures, and other confounding factors between the cohorts. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 328 811 patients met the criteria: 327 643 (99.6%) received open mastectomy and 1168 (.4%) received MIM. Propensity match identified 384 "pairs" of MIM and open mastectomy patients. Among them, MIM was associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) (mean 1.3 vs. 1.06 days, P = .003). No differences were observed in the rates of positive margins, unplanned readmissions, or 90-day mortality between the 2 operative approaches. Overall survival (OS) was equivalent between MIM and open mastectomy patients. Cox proportional hazard regression showed no effect of the procedure performed on OS.

DISCUSSION

MIM is associated with shorter LOS, and it is non-inferior to open mastectomy in terms of other short-term outcomes and long-term oncologic survival outcomes. These data suggest that MIM may be considered in appropriately selected breast cancer patients as an additional approach to the community.

Robotic Versus Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Background

Several studies reported the feasibility and safety of robotic-NSM (R-NSM). The aim of our prospective study was to compare R-NSM and conventional-NSM (C-NSM).

Methods

We analyzed patients who were operated on with and without robotic assistance (R-NSM or C-NSM) and who received immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with implant or latissimus dorsi-flap (LDF). The main objective was complication rate and secondary aims were post-operative length of hospitalization (POLH), duration of surgery, and cost.

Results

We analyzed 87 R-NSM and 142 C-NSM with implant-IBR in 50 and 135 patients, with LDF-IBR in 37 and 7 patients, respectively. Higher durations of surgery and costs were observed for R-NSM, without a difference in POLH and interval time to adjuvant therapy between R-NSM and C-NSM. In the multivariate analysis, R-NSM was not associated with a higher breast complication rate (OR=0.608) and significant factors were breast cup-size, LDF combined with implant-IBR, tobacco and inversed-T incision. Grade 2-3 breast complications rate were 13% for R-NSM and 17.3% for C-NSM, significantly higher for LDF combined with implant-IBR, areolar/radial incisions and BMI>=30. A predictive score was calculated (AUC=0.754). In logistic regression, patient's satisfaction between C-NSM and R-NSM were not significantly different, with unfavorable results for BMI >=25 (OR=2.139), NSM for recurrence (OR=5.371) and primary breast cancer with radiotherapy (OR=4.533). A predictive score was calculated. In conclusion, our study confirms the comparable clinical outcome between C- NSM and R-NSM, in the price of longer surgery and higher cost for R-NSM. Predictive scores of breast complications and satisfaction were significantly associated with factors known in the pre-operative period.

Post-Operative Complications and Nipple Necrosis Rates Between Conventional and Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Purpose

This study is to directly compare surgical outcomes between conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM) and robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM).

Materials and Method

For this case–control study, 369 cases of 333 patients who underwent CNSM or RNSM with immediate reconstruction between November 2016 and January 2019 at Severance Hospital in Seoul, Republic of Korea were reviewed. Patients with stage IV breast cancer (n = 1), receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 43), or subjected to previous operations (n = 14) or radiotherapy on the breasts were excluded. The main outcomes were comparing rates of post-operative complications, of high-grade post-operative complications as defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification, and nipple necrosis between the CNSM and the RNSM groups.

Results

A total of 311 cases, including 270 CNSMs and 41 RNSMs, were analyzed. The rates of post-operative nipple necrosis (p = 0.026, 2.4 vs. 15.2%) and of high-grade post-operative complications (p = 0.031, 34.8 vs. 17.1%) in the RNSM group were significantly lower than those in the CNSM group.

Conclusion

RNSM was associated with lower rates of high-grade post-operative complications and nipple necrosis than CNSM for patients with small breast volumes and less ptotic breasts.

Comparison of Single Incision Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer Based on Initial Experience

Purpose

Endoscopic breast surgery for patients with breast cancer was introduced for its superior cosmetic outcomes; it was initially studied in the field of breast-conserving surgery and, more recently, in robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). The main purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic NSM (E-NSM) in patients with breast cancer by comparing E-NSM and conventional NSM (C-NSM).

Methods

Between May 2017 and October 2020, we retrieved the records of 45 patients who underwent NSM with permanent silicone implants and divided them into the E-NSM group (20 patients) and the C-NSM group (25 patients), depending on the use of the endoscopic device. We also analyzed demographic information, pathology, operative time, and complications.

Results

No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups based on demographic information, postoperative pathological data, mean length of hospital stay, and total number of complications. The mean preparation time for surgery was comparable between both groups. Compared to the C-NSM group, the E-NSM group had a significantly longer mean operative time and, subsequently, a significantly longer mean total operative time and number of complications.

Conclusion

The results showed that E-NSM was feasible and safe with a more inconspicuous incision in patients with breast cancer.

Comparison between Gasless and Gas-Inflated Robot-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Purpose

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) includes various techniques, including conventional or endoscopic mastectomies. Since the introduction of robot-assisted NSM (RANSM) in 2015, 2 main methods have been used: gasless and gas-inflated techniques. The aim of this study was to compare clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications between patients treated with gasless RANSM and those treated with gas-inflated RANSM.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of women who underwent gasless or gas-inflated RANSM with immediate breast reconstruction between November 2016 and May 2019. The indications for RANSM were early breast cancer, interstitial mastopathy, or BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were analyzed. The severity of complications was graded using the Clavien-Dindo system.

Results

A total of 58 RANSM procedures were performed in 46 women: 15 cases of gasless RANSM and 43 cases of gas-inflated RANSM. The proportion of node-negative disease was higher in the gas-inflated group (97.1%) than in the gasless group (69.2%, p = 0.016). Adjuvant radiotherapy was administered in 30.6% of the cases in the gasless group and only 5% of the cases in the gas-inflated group. Other clinicopathological factors were not significantly different between the groups. Regarding surgical outcomes, the initial incision was 1 cm longer in the gasless group (5.17 ± 0.88 cm) than that in the gas-inflated group (4.20 ± 1.05 cm; p = 0.002). The final incision was also longer in the gasless group (5.17 ± 0.88 cm) than that in the gas-inflated group (4.57 ± 1.07 cm; p = 0.040). Operation time, complication rate, and complication grade were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

In this study, there were no significant differences in surgical outcomes or postoperative complications between gasless and gas-inflated RANSM, except for a longer incision with the gasless technique. Both techniques are reasonable options for RANSM followed by immediate reconstruction.

Mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: Results of a mono-centric 4-years cohort

Introduction

Oncological safety, quality of life and cosmetic outcomes seems to be similar between breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). We report our experience of IBR for consecutive mastectomies realized in a recent period of four years in order to determined immediate surgical results according to type of mastectomy and type of reconstruction, as mains objectives.

Methods

All mastectomies with IBR during years 2016–2019 were included. A retrospective analysis with prospective data collection was performed.

Results

We analyzed 748 IBR: 353 nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM), 391 skin-sparing mastectomies (SSM) and 4 standard mastectomies, 551 with definitive implant or expanders and 196 with latissimus dorsi-flap (LDF). More NSM were performed during the 2 last years and more LDF were performed for high BMI, high breast cup-size, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy and local recurrence. We realized 111 robotic NSM and 125 robotic LDF. Longer duration of surgery was significantly associated with the robotic procedures.

The overall complications crude rate was 31.4% with 9.9% of re-operations and 5.8% of implant loss. Grade 2–3 complications were significantly associated with smoking. Breast complications occurred in 32.9% of mastectomies with principally skin or nipple-areola-complex suffering or necrosis, hematomas and infections. A predictive score was determined to evaluate risk of complications before surgery.

Conclusion

Mastectomy with IBR seems to be a safe technique with an acceptable complication rate which is increased by tobacco use, high breast cup-size and IBR-type.

•

Mastectomy with immediate breast to determined immediate surgical results.

•

More Nipple Sparing Mastectomy performed during the 2 last years.

•

More Latissimus dorsi-flap performed for high BMI, high breast cup-size, after radiotherapy.

Residual breast tissue after robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy

Introduction

While the long-term oncologic safety of robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RNSM) remains to be elucidated, histologically detected residual breast tissue (RBT) can be a surrogate for oncologically sound mastectomy. The objective of this study is to determine the presence of RBT after RNSM.

Methods

Between August 2019–January 2020, we completed 5 cadaveric RNSMs. Full thickness biopsies from the mastectomy skin flap were obtained from predefined locations radially around the mastectomy skin envelop and nipple areolar complex to histologically evaluate for RBT.

Results

The first case was not technically feasible due to inability to obtain adequate insufflation. Five mastectomy flaps were analyzable. The average mastectomy flap thickness was 2.3 mm (range 2–3 mm) and the average specimen weight was 382.72 g (range 146.9–558.3 g). Of 70 total biopsies, RBT was detected in 11 (15.7%) biopsies. Most common location for RBT was in the nipple-areolar complex, with no RBT detected from the peripheral skin flaps.

Conclusions

In this cadaveric study, RNSM is feasible leaving minimal RBT on the mastectomy flap. The most common location for RBT is in the periareolar location consistent with previous published findings after open NSM. Clinical studies are underway to evaluate the safety of RNSM.

•

Robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RNSM) is technically feasible.

•

Residual breast tissue after RNSM is histologically detected only from the periareolar location.

•

Further clinical trials are underway to determine oncologic safety of RNSM.

Evaluation of the Learning Curve in Robotic Nipple-sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

This study discusses the preliminary results of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) in patients with breast cancer and analyzes the learning curve of the same surgeon in a single medical center.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Patients with breast cancer from a single center who received R-NSM between 2018 to 2020 were recruited for clinical and pathologic tumor characteristics including family history, grade, type of tumor, treatment, and outcome. The learning curve for R-NSM was analyzed by using cumulative sum (CUSUM).

RESULTS

A total of 85 R-NSM procedures from 78 patients were evaluated. In the CUSUM plot analysis of the learning curve, a significant decrease in time for mastectomy, reconstruction, and total operation appeared in the 22nd, 23rd, and 26th procedures, respectively. Patients' body weight, gel implant size, and specimen weight had significant correlations with the time for mastectomy. Four (5.6%) patients had nipple partial ischemia, and 1 (1.4%) had total nipple necrosis. The mean follow-up was 11.4 ± 6.2 months; only 1 patient showed recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic breast surgery is a feasible method with good cosmetic outcome under suitable patient selection. Oncologic safety is not a reason to stop its development.

Robotic nipple sparing mastectomy through a single incision: Advantages of starting with posterior dissection

Objectives

Loss of breast, which is an important body marking of women, causes a huge decrease in quality of life (QoL) after treatment. In order to overcome this morbidity and increase QoL, nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) has been developed. Even though the demand for better cosmetic results has yielded endoscopic nipple sparing mastectomy, limitations like unsuitable optical window and limited manual control of rigid-tip instruments, and struggling to keep dissection space have led robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (rNSM) to be developed.

Material and Methods

Records of three patients who underwent to rNSM for invasive breast carcinoma with DaVinci Xi (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) in affiliated hospitals of xxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxx University, Research Institute of xxxxx in 2018 were investigated retrospectively. In all breasts (n=4), dissection was started from the posterior side of breast.

Results

In the unit, 738 breast cancer patients underwent surgery between 2018 and 2019 with an NSM ratio of 31.4% (n=232). Of these patients, three underwent rNSM with DaVinci Xi robotic system. The operation was performed on the left breast in one patient, right in one, and bilateral in one patient. Only in patient #2, who was a neoadjuvant chemotherapy recipient, seroma was observed six weeks after surgery (3 weeks after removal of drains) and spontaneously resolved in 4 weeks. No other complication was seen in all patients. In the follow-up period of median 21 months, no loco-regional recurrence or distant metastasis was seen.

Conclusion

A single incision robotic mastectomy can be performed easily and safely when the dissection starts from the pre-pectoral plane rather than the subcutaneous plane.

Consensus Statement on Robotic Mastectomy-Expert Panel From International Endoscopic and Robotic Breast Surgery Symposium (IERBS) 2019

OBJECTIVES

To achieve a consensus statement on robotic mastectomy.

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery has gained much attention especially the results of few case series reporting on the technical feasibility, safety and early oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted mastectomy in a few centers worldwide. The aim of this consensus statement was to develop and provide standardized guidelines on robotic mastectomy based on consensus statement by a panel of experts from indications to outcome measures and indicators, thereby providing a valuable guide for breast surgeons worldwide.

METHODOLOGY

An internationally representative expert panel of 10 surgeons was invited to participate in the generation of a consensus statement. 52 statements were created in 6 domains: indications, contraindications, technical considerations, patient counseling, outcome measures and indicators, training and learning curve assessment. Experts were asked to vote if they agree, disagree or of the opinion that the statement should be rephrased. Two electronic rounds via online survey of iterative rating and feedback were anonymously completed, followed by a final round of in-person meeting during the inaugural International Endoscopic and Robotic Breast Surgery Symposium 2019 from May 24 to 25, 2019. Consensus was reached when there was at least 80% agreement on each statement.

RESULTS

A total of 53 statements with at least 80% agreement were generated after 3 rounds of voting; 21 statements from first round of voting, 20 statements from second round of voting and 12 statements from the final round of in-person meeting. All experts agreed that the consensus statement served as expert recommendations but not mandatory for a successful and safe practice of robotic mastectomy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic mastectomy is a promising technique and could well be the future of minimally invasive breast surgery whereas proving to be safe and feasible. The first consensus statement on robotic mastectomy from an international panel of experts serves as an extremely important milestone and provides recommendations for breast surgeons keen to embark on this technique.