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

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.

A Novel Endoscopic Approach for Treating Breast Cancer: Haigui-1 Hole

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic surgery is an effective technique for preserving the nipple and areola, as well as for sentinel lymph node biopsy and breast implant reconstruction. However, the technical challenges associated with endoscopic surgery have limited its widespread adoption.

METHODS

In the normal single-port endoscopic surgery, the ultrasonic knife was accessed through the retractor. In our modified procedure, a tiny 5 mm incision was made at the lateral margin underneath the breast, serving as the second entry port for the ultrasonic scalpel, which was referred to as the "Haigui-1 hole". Preoperative and postoperative indicators such as blood loss, operative time, and postoperative drainage volume were collected. Differences between parameters were compared using Student's t test.

RESULTS

Endoscopic surgery with the assistance of the "Haigui-1 hole" led to preserved breast aesthetics with minimal scarring. Moreover, "Haigui-1 hole" surgery significantly reduced the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and postoperative drainage volume compared to normal single-port endoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSION

The "Haigui-1 hole" procedure, which involves the addition of a second entrance to improve the maneuverability of the ultrasonic knife, is worthy of further promotion.

[Past and present of endoscopic surgery and robotic surgery in treatment of breast diseases]

Objective

To review the research progress related to endoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for breast diseases, aiming to provide references for clinical practice.

Methods

The recent domestic and international literature on endoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for breast diseases was reviewed, then the challenges in their development, the innovative evolution of endoscopic surgery combined with clinical practice by our team, and its clinical applications were summarized.

Results

Traditional endoscopic surgery, despite its advantages such as minimal invasiveness, good cosmetic outcomes, and high patient's satisfaction, has been limited in its development due to specific difficulties in establishing the operative field. Our team innovatively proposed the "reverse sequence method" and the Huaxi Hole 1 theory and methods, cleverly altering the surgical procedure sequence, adding small operative orifices to transform single-port operations into multi-port ones, effectively overcoming the challenges restricting the advancement of endoscopic surgery in the field of breast diseases, thereby enabling further proliferation of endoscopic procedures. In terms of breast endoscopic reconstruction surgery, the parachute patch technique has broadened the indications for reconstruction surgery, benefiting patients with a certain degree of breast ptosis; and the postoperative adjustment concept, through early intervention in the post-reconstruction breast shape, has further refined the reconstruction procedure. Robot-assisted surgery derived from endoscopic surgery theory has further enhanced the precision and stability of surgeries, reducing surgical risks; however, excessive time and economic costs are urgent issues that must be addressed.

Conclusion

Through theoretical innovations, endoscopic surgery has been applied in the excision and reconstruction of breast lesions, while robotic surgery shows promising applications in autologous breast reconstruction, especially in the latissimus dorsi reconstruction field. Nevertheless, the lack of high-level large-sample, multi-center randomized controlled clinical trials to confirm its surgical safety, oncological safety, and postoperative cosmetic outcomes is an important direction for future research.

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.

Oncoplastic breast surgery in Europe

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS) has become an integral part of breast cancer surgery for both breast conservation and mastectomies. In recent years, the emphasis on early detection and the advances in systemic and locoregional therapy has improved prognosis leading to an increased focus on survivorship and quality of life issues including patients' short and long-term aesthetic appearance as a key part of the surgical management. There is a significant variation across Europe in the type of specialist performing breast cancer surgery and the provision of OPS as such. In the traditional model, breast cancer care was provided by gynecologists in some countries, general surgeons, surgical oncologists, and breast surgeons in others. However recently, surgeons throughout Europe have extended their skill-base to include level 1 and 2 OPS and implant- and pedicle-flap based breast reconstruction. For breast surgeons to become proficient in these techniques, a standardized level of training and expertise is needed. The European Society of Mastology (EUSOMA) set standards for a specialist health professional in the field of breast cancer, the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) examinations and the global curriculum that was developed by the American Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) aims to improve standards of OPS practice across Europe. The new generation of breast surgeons, therefore, should be equipped with the necessary skill set to provide high quality OPS while keeping abreast of novel technologies and techniques aiming to provide patients with excellent long-term quality of life.

Minimally Invasive and Innovative Management of Prosthesis Infections in Endoscopic-Assisted Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Implant infection continues to be the most common complication of breast reconstruction, and it can lead to serious consequences of implant loss. Recently, endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is being performed more frequently, with similar prosthetic infection incidence compared to conventional techniques. But there is little information published in the literature on the management of periprosthetic infection in endoscopic-assisted breast reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent endoscope-assisted breast reconstruction and developed periprosthetic infection between January 2020 and December 2022. Prosthesis infection was defined as any case where antibiotics were given, beyond the surgeon's standard perioperative period, in response to clinical signs such as swelling, pain, erythema, increased temperature, fever, etc. We summarized our clinical approach and treatment protocol for periprosthetic infection patients. Collected data include preoperative basic information, surgical details, postoperative data, and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 580 patients (713 reconstructions) underwent endoscopic-assisted immediate breast reconstruction. There were 58 patients developed periprosthetic infection, 14 of whom had bilateral prosthesis reconstruction with unilateral prosthesis infection. The incidence of infection was 10.0%. Average follow-up was 17.3 ± 8.9 months (range = 2-37 months). Of the 58 patients, 53 (91.4%) patients successful salvaged implant and 5(8.6%) patients removed prosthesis. During follow-up, Baker III capsular contracture occurred in 2 patients (3.8%) who had radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Our management of prosthesis infections in endoscopic-assisted breast reconstruction is easy, minimally invasive, and inexpensive. This method can be repeated if the implant infection does not improve after the first drainage. What's more, our data suggest that our prosthesis salvage of periprosthetic infection is effective.

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 .

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.

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 insufflation endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy in early breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in female patients. In recent years, more and more studies have focused on how to improve the appearance and the quality of life for patients. This study aimed to compare the oncologic safety, aesthetic results, and upper extremity function between single-port insufflation endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (SIE-NSM) and conventional open mastectomy (C-OM) in early-stage breast cancer treatment.

Methods

In our retrospective cohort, 285 patients with stage I and II breast cancer were categorized into the SIE-NSM group (n=71) and the C-OM group (n=214). We assessed local recurrence, distant metastasis, and upper extremity function across the two groups. The BREAST-Q scale was employed to analyze differences in aesthetic results, psychosocial well-being, and sexual health. The risk of local recurrence was evaluated using multivariable binary logistic regression, while a multivariable linear regression model gauged upper extremity function and aesthetic outcomes.

Results

Local recurrence rates between the two groups were statistically similar (1/71, 1.4% for SIE-NSM vs. 2/214, 0.9% for C-OM, P=0.735), as confirmed by the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. Neither group exhibited distant metastases. The SIE-NSM group demonstrated higher scores in satisfaction with breasts, chest wellness, psychosocial health, and sexual well-being (P<0.001). The SIE-NSM group also exhibited superior outcomes regarding chest wall/breast pain, shoulder mobility, and daily arm usage (P<0.001). No subcutaneous effusion was reported in the SIE-NSM group, whereas the C-OM group had a 10.7% incidence rate (P=0.004).

Conclusions

SIE-NSM offers comparable oncologic safety to C-OM but provides enhanced satisfaction regarding breast appearance, physical comfort, psychosocial health, sexual health, and improved upper extremity functionality. Consequently, this innovative approach is a suitable surgical alternative for treating early-stage breast cancer.

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.

Mastectomy with Reconstruction Including Robotic Endoscopic Surgery (MARRES): a prospective cohort study of the Korea Robot-Endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) and Korean Breast Cancer Study Group (KBCSG)

BACKGROUND

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) has emerged as a new treatment option for breast cancer and risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) for women who have a high risk of pathogenic variants. Even though several studies have reported that RNSM is a feasible procedure, some argue that it should only be performed by specialized surgeons, and data on oncologic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are limited. Recently, the United States Food and Drug Administration and several surgeons warned that robotic breast surgery should be performed only by specialized surgeons and recommended that the benefits, risks, and alternatives of all available treatment options be discussed with patients so they can make informed treatment decisions. The Korea Robot-Endoscopy Minimal Access Breast Surgery Study Group (KoREa-BSG) has been established to evaluate, standardize, and teach this state-of-the-art procedure. We have designed a multicenter prospective cohort study entitled Mastectomy with Reconstruction Including Robot Endoscopic Surgery (MARRES) to report surgical, PRO, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

MARRES is a multi-institution cohort study prospectively collecting data from patients undergoing mastectomy and reconstruction. The patient inclusion criteria are adult women older than 19 with breast cancer or a high risk of breast cancer (patients with BRCA1/2, TP53, PALB2 mutations, etc.), who have scheduled therapeutic or RRM and want immediate reconstruction. Surgical outcomes, including pre- and postoperative photos, oncologic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and PRO, are collected. The primary endpoints are postoperative complication rates within 30 postoperative days and the Clavien-Dindo grade of postoperative complications within 180 postoperative days. The secondary endpoints are 5-year postoperative recurrence-free survival and cancer incidence rate (for those who underwent RRM), patient satisfaction with reconstruction expectations preoperative (baseline) and results within 6 to 12 postoperative months, surgeon satisfaction with postoperative results in 6 postoperative months, and cost-effectiveness of the definitive surgery. Patient recruitment will be completed in April 2025, and the target number of enrolled patients is 2000.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence about the surgical outcomes, oncologic outcomes, and patient satisfaction with RNSM and endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), compared with conventional NSM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04585074. Registered April 8, 2020.

A Preliminary Experience of Endoscopic Total Mastectomy With Immediate Free Abdominal-Based Perforator Flap Reconstruction Using Minimal Incisions, and Literature Review

PURPOSE

Endoscopic total mastectomy (ETM) is predominantly performed with reconstruction using prostheses, lipofilling, omental flaps, latissimus dorsi flaps, or a combination of these techniques. Common approaches include minimal incisions, e.g., periareolar, inframammary, axillary, or mid-axillary line, which limit the technical ability to perform autologous flap insets and microvascular anastomoses, as such the ETM with free abdominal-based perforator flap reconstruction has not been robustly explored.

METHODS

We studied female patients with breast cancer who underwent ETM and abdominal-based flap reconstruction. Clinical-radiological-pathological characteristics, surgery, complications, recurrence rates, and aesthetic outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients underwent ETM with abdominal-based flap reconstruction. The mean age was 53.4 years (range 36-65). Of the patients, 33.3% were surgically treated for stage I, 58.4% for stage II, and 8.3% for stage III cancer. Mean tumor size was 35.4 mm (range 1-67). Mean specimen weight was 458.75 g (range 242-800). Of the patients, 92.3% successfully received endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and 7.7% underwent intraoperative conversion to skin-sparing mastectomy after carcinoma was reported on frozen section of the nipple base. Mean operative time for ETM was 139 minutes (92-198), and the average ischemic time was 37.3 minutes (range 22-50). Fifty percent of patients underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator, 33.4% underwent MS-2 transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM), 8.3% underwent MS-1 TRAM, and 8.3% underwent pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction. No cases required re-exploration, no flap failure occurred, margins were clear, and no skin or nipple-areolar complex ischemia/necrosis developed. In the aesthetic outcome evaluation, 16.7% were excellent, 75% good, 8.3% fair, and none were unsatisfactory. No recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSION

ETM through a minimal-access inferior mammary or mid-axillary line approach, followed by immediate pedicled TRAM or free abdominal-based perforator flap reconstruction, can be a safe means of achieving an "aesthetically scarless" mastectomy and reconstruction through minimal incisions.

Association of Long-term Oncologic Prognosis With Minimal Access Breast Surgery vs Conventional Breast Surgery

Importance

Minimal access breast surgery (MABS) has been used in breast cancer management. However, long-term prognostic data associated with MABS vs conventional breast surgery (CBS) are lacking.

Objective

To investigate long-term therapeutic outcomes associated with MABS vs CBS for breast cancer management.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this single-center retrospective cohort study, 9184 individuals were assessed for inclusion. After exclusions, 2412 adult female individuals were included who were diagnosed with stage 0 to III breast cancer, underwent unilateral breast surgery between January 2004 and December 2017, and had no distant metastasis or history of severe underlying disease. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize selection bias. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2019.

Exposures

MABS or CBS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Data on demographic and tumor characteristics and long-term outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

This study included 2412 patients (100% female; median [IQR] age, 44 [40-49] years). Of these, 603 patients underwent MABS (endoscopic, endoscopy-assisted, or robot-assisted procedures in 289, 302, and 12 patients, respectively) and 1809 patients underwent CBS. The median follow-up time was 84 months (93 in the MABS group and 80 months in the CBS group). Intergroup differences were not significant for the following parameters: 10-year local recurrence-free survival (93.3% vs 96.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.86-2.27; P = .18), regional recurrence-free survival (95.5% vs 96.7%; HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.81-2.36; P = .23), and distant metastasis-free survival (81.0% vs 82.0%; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.23; P = .72). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year disease-free survival rates in the MABS group were 85.9%, 72.6%, and 69.1%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the CBS group were 85.0%, 76.6%, and 70.7%. The intergroup differences were not significant (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31; P = .55). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year overall survival rates in the MABS group were 92.0%, 83.7%, and 83.0%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the CBS group were 93.6%, 88.7%, and 81.0%. The intergroup differences were not significant (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97-1.72; P = .09). Post hoc subgroup analysis showed no significant intergroup differences in disease-free survival.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, long-term outcomes following MABS were not significantly different from those following CBS in patients with early-stage breast cancer. MABS may be a safe and feasible alternative in this patient population.