Literature DB >> 12142660

Nipple-areola reconstruction: satisfaction and clinical determinants.

Mark A Jabor1, Payam Shayani, Donald R Collins, Tomer Karas, Benjamin E Cohen.   

Abstract

After performing a chart review, the authors identified 120 patients who underwent breast cancer-related reconstruction. All charts were evaluated with regard to breast mound reconstruction type, nipple-areola reconstruction type, the interval between breast mound and nipple-areola reconstruction, the number of procedures needed to achieve nipple-areola reconstruction, patient history of radiation therapy, and complications. A questionnaire was then developed and mailed to all of the patients who underwent both breast mound and nipple/areola reconstruction (n = 105) to evaluate their level of satisfaction. Of the 43 patients who returned the questionnaire, 41 completed all portions correctly. The questionnaire evaluated patient satisfaction with breast mound reconstruction; patient satisfaction with nipple-areola reconstruction; what the patient disliked most about the nipple-areola reconstruction; and whether or not the patient would choose to have breast reconstruction again. Several parameters were then tested statistically against the reported patient satisfaction.A review of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction revealed that their breast mound reconstructions were done using either a TRAM flap (59 percent), a latissimus dorsi flap and an implant (19 percent), an expander followed by an implant (9 percent), an implant only (4 percent), or other means (9 percent). The nipple-areola was reconstructed in these patients with either a star flap (36 percent), nipple sharing (10 percent), a keyhole flap (9 percent), a skate flap (9 percent), an S-flap (8 percent), a full-thickness skin graft (6 percent), or by another means (22 percent). The number of procedures needed to achieve nipple-areola reconstruction was either one (in 66 percent of the patients), two (in 32 percent of the patients), or three or more (2 percent of the patients). Eleven percent of the patients experienced the complication of nipple necrosis. Satisfaction with breast mound reconstruction was reported by 81 percent of patients to be excellent/good, by 14 percent of patients to be fair, and by 5 percent of patients to be poor. Reported satisfaction with nipple-areola reconstruction was excellent/good for 64 percent of patients, fair for 22 percent of patients, and poor for 14 percent of patients. The factors patients disliked most about their nipple-areola reconstruction were, in descending order, lack of projection, color match, shape, size, texture, and position. Statistical analysis of the data revealed inferior patient satisfaction when there was a longer interval between breast mound and nipple areola reconstruction (p = 0.003). No significant difference was observed in nipple/areola reconstruction satisfaction ratings when compared with breast mound reconstruction type (p = 0.46), nipple-areola reconstruction type (p = 0.98), and history of radiation therapy (p = 0.23). There was also no significant difference when breast mound reconstruction was compared with technique (p = 0.51) and history of radiation therapy (p = 0.079). Overall, there was a greater satisfaction with breast mound reconstruction than with nipple-areola reconstruction (p = 0.0001).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12142660     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200208000-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  45 in total

1.  Psychosocial and Sexual Well-Being Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Reconstruction.

Authors:  Cindy H Wei; Amie M Scott; Alison N Price; Helen Catherine Miller; Anne F Klassen; Sabrina M Jhanwar; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa; Colleen McCarthy; Evan Matros; Peter G Cordeiro; Virgilio Sacchini; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.431

2.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy - Extended Indications and Limitations.

Authors:  Markus Niemeyera; Johannes Ettla; Birgit Plattnera; Rainer Schmida; Daniel Müllerb; Hans-Günther Machensb; Marion Kiechlea; Stefan Paepkea
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  MRI-based quantification of residual fibroglandular tissue of the breast after conservative mastectomies.

Authors:  Ramona Woitek; Georg Pfeiler; Alex Farr; Panagiotis Kapetas; Julia Furtner; Maria Bernathova; Veronika Schöpf; Paola Clauser; Maria A Marino; Katja Pinker; Pascal A Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Videoendoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction.

Authors:  Mustafa Tukenmez; Burcu Celet Ozden; Orhan Agcaoglu; Mustafa Kecer; Vahit Ozmen; Mahmut Muslumanoglu; Abdullah Igci
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 1.878

Review 5.  Trends and controversies in multidisciplinary care of the patient with breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura S Dominici; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Jennifer Bellon; Tari A King
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  Nipple-areolar complex reconstruction and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ellen S Satteson; Benjamin J Brown; Maurice Y Nahabedian
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-02

7.  Use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in nipple reconstruction: the 'central-pillar technique'.

Authors:  Russell J Bramhall; Paul T R Thiruchelvam; Mae Concepcion; Gerald P Gui
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-08

8.  The Necessity of the Nipple: Redefining Completeness in Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  E Hope Weissler; Julie B Schnur; Andreas M Lamelas; Marisa Cornejo; Elan Horesh; Peter J Taub
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.539

9.  The efficacy of Artecoll injections for the augmentation of nipple projection in breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Colleen M McCarthy; Nancy VanLaeken; Peter Lennox; Amie M Scott; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2010-01-04

10.  Twelve-year delay of a nipple-sharing graft: A case report.

Authors:  Tatiana Ks Cypel; Mitchell Brown
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2013
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.