Comparative Study of Nipple-Areola Complex Position and Patient Satisfaction After Unilateral Mastectomy and Immediate Expander-Implant Reconstruction Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy
- PMID: 30746565
- DOI: 10.1007/s00266-018-1217-8
Comparative Study of Nipple-Areola Complex Position and Patient Satisfaction After Unilateral Mastectomy and Immediate Expander-Implant Reconstruction Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy
Abstract
Background: Major surgical concerns associated with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) are partial or total nipple-areola complex (NAC) loss, decreased sensation, and nipple malposition. Patient satisfaction and NAC outcomes including malposition in patients who have undergone unilateral expander-implant reconstruction after NSM as compared with skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) remain unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and NAC outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent spared or reconstructed NAC after unilateral NSM as compared with unilateral SSM.
Methods: Patients who underwent immediate expander-implant breast reconstruction following unilateral NSM or SSM were included. Medical records of patients from April 2010 to February 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Reconstruction-related complications such as infection, seroma, haematoma, delayed wound healing, and reconstruction failure were recorded. NAC outcome analysis was performed using preoperative and postoperative digital photographs for each patient. Patient satisfaction with the reconstructed breast and NAC was assessed using a study-specific questionnaire.
Results: Delayed wound healing occurred in 18 of 55 NSM patients and 15 of 85 SSM patients (p = 0.040). Final reconstruction failure occurred in 0 NSM patients and 6 SSM patients (p = 0.043). The mean photography analysis score of total aesthetic outcome was 13.12 ± 2.39 in the NSM group and 14.06 ± 2.75 in the SSM group (p = 0.052). The mean questionnaire score of NAC position was 2.88 ± 0.85 in the NSM group and 3.80 ± 0.84 in the SSM group (p = 0.001). The mean questionnaire score of NAC sensitivity was 2.12 ± 0.58 in the NSM group and 1.84 ± 0.46 in the SSM group (p = 0.003). Satisfaction with the reconstructed breast was similar (p = 0.913) after NSM and SSM.
Conclusions: We observed no significant difference in breast reconstruction satisfaction between the NSM and SSM groups. Although overall satisfaction with breast reconstruction is high, patients in the NSM group often report dissatisfaction with nipple position. With a favourable score for NAC position, skin-sparing mastectomy followed by NAC reconstruction can be considered as a balanced alternative to NSM for properly selected patients with breast cancer.
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 .
Keywords: Breast reconstruction; Nipple malposition; Nipple-sparing mastectomy; Patient satisfaction; Skin-sparing mastectomy.
Similar articles
-
Patient Satisfaction and Nipple-Areola Sensitivity After Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction in a High Breast Cancer Risk Population: Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy.Ann Plast Surg. 2016 Aug;77(2):145-52. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000366. Ann Plast Surg. 2016. PMID: 26076217
-
Deepithelialized Skin Reduction Preserves Skin and Nipple Perfusion in Immediate Reconstruction of Large and Ptotic Breasts.Ann Plast Surg. 2018 Jul;81(1):22-27. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001427. Ann Plast Surg. 2018. PMID: 29746276
-
Quantitative assessment and risk factors for nipple-areolar complex malposition after nipple-sparing mastectomy.Breast Cancer. 2019 Jan;26(1):58-64. doi: 10.1007/s12282-018-0890-4. Epub 2018 Jul 6. Breast Cancer. 2019. PMID: 29981009
-
Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: Review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications.Breast. 2017 Aug;34 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S82-S84. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034. Epub 2017 Jun 30. Breast. 2017. PMID: 28673535 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical outcomes of patients after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction based on the expander/implant technique.Surg Today. 2021 Jun;51(6):862-871. doi: 10.1007/s00595-020-02175-4. Epub 2020 Nov 13. Surg Today. 2021. PMID: 33185799 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Preserving Nipple Sensitivity after Breast Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Breast J. 2022 Nov 19;2022:9654741. doi: 10.1155/2022/9654741. eCollection 2022. Breast J. 2022. PMID: 36474965 Free PMC article.
-
Autogenous breast reconstruction for total mastectomies: a narrative review.Ann Transl Med. 2024 Feb 1;12(1):9. doi: 10.21037/atm-23-1471. Epub 2023 Dec 13. Ann Transl Med. 2024. PMID: 38304895 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Biological Matrix-Assisted One-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021 Dec;45(6):2581-2590. doi: 10.1007/s00266-021-02509-8. Epub 2021 Aug 4. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021. PMID: 34350500
-
A Systematic Review of Questionnaires Assessing Patient Satisfaction in Plastic Surgery: Tools, Topics, and Surgical Types.Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024 Sep 13;12(9):e6156. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006156. eCollection 2024 Sep. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024. PMID: 39281089 Free PMC article.
-
The Evolution of Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Innovations, Trends, and Future Directions.J Clin Med. 2024 Dec 5;13(23):7407. doi: 10.3390/jcm13237407. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 39685866 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous