BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become an accepted treatment for appropriately selected breast cancers. No reports have correlated patient satisfaction following nipple-sparing mastectomy with objective observer assessments. METHODS: From 2001 to 2008, nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction were performed on 141 patients. After institutional review board approval, patients completed questionnaires rating their satisfaction with various aspects of their nipple-areola complex using a Likert-type scale. Three independent observers then reviewed the nipple-areola complex in 34 patients and rated the outcome using the same scale. RESULTS: The survey completion rate was 53 percent and the mean follow-up was 50.4 months (range, 9 to 100 months). A majority of patients rated appearance, symmetry, color, position, and texture as good or excellent. A majority of patients rated sensation and arousal as fair or poor. Fifty-seven patients (73.1 percent) stated they would definitely undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy again. Patients with larger volumes of breast tissue removed (p = 0.010), larger preoperative body mass index (p = 0.034), or larger tissue expander volumes (p = 0.007) reported lower satisfaction. Patient assessments for appearance, color, symmetry, and position correlated with those of objective observers. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' study is the largest series to address patient satisfaction with the nipple-areola complex following nipple-sparing mastectomy and the only one to correlate patient self-assessment with assessment by independent observers. Overall, patients were very satisfied with appearance of the nipple-areola complex and most would choose nipple-sparing mastectomy again. A majority of patients rated sensation as fair or poor, with sensation constituting the most frequent aspect of the nipple-areola complex that patients would change. Larger body mass index, expander volumes, and volume of breast tissue removed may predict dissatisfaction postoperatively.
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy has become an accepted treatment for appropriately selected breast cancers. No reports have correlated patient satisfaction following nipple-sparing mastectomy with objective observer assessments. METHODS: From 2001 to 2008, nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction were performed on 141 patients. After institutional review board approval, patients completed questionnaires rating their satisfaction with various aspects of their nipple-areola complex using a Likert-type scale. Three independent observers then reviewed the nipple-areola complex in 34 patients and rated the outcome using the same scale. RESULTS: The survey completion rate was 53 percent and the mean follow-up was 50.4 months (range, 9 to 100 months). A majority of patients rated appearance, symmetry, color, position, and texture as good or excellent. A majority of patients rated sensation and arousal as fair or poor. Fifty-seven patients (73.1 percent) stated they would definitely undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy again. Patients with larger volumes of breast tissue removed (p = 0.010), larger preoperative body mass index (p = 0.034), or larger tissue expander volumes (p = 0.007) reported lower satisfaction. Patient assessments for appearance, color, symmetry, and position correlated with those of objective observers. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' study is the largest series to address patient satisfaction with the nipple-areola complex following nipple-sparing mastectomy and the only one to correlate patient self-assessment with assessment by independent observers. Overall, patients were very satisfied with appearance of the nipple-areola complex and most would choose nipple-sparing mastectomy again. A majority of patients rated sensation as fair or poor, with sensation constituting the most frequent aspect of the nipple-areola complex that patients would change. Larger body mass index, expander volumes, and volume of breast tissue removed may predict dissatisfaction postoperatively.
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
Authors: Michael A Howard; Mark Sisco; Katharine Yao; David J Winchester; Ermilo Barrera; Jeremy Warner; Jennifer Jaffe; Peter Hulick; Kristine Kuchta; Andrea L Pusic; Stephen F Sener Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.454
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
Authors: Yoshitomo Ashitate; Bernard T Lee; Long H Ngo; Rita G Laurence; Merlijn Hutteman; Rafiou Oketokoun; Elaine Lunsford; Hak Soo Choi; John V Frangioni Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Lesly A Dossett; Janell Lowe; Weihong Sun; M C Lee; Paul D Smith; Paul B Jacobsen; Christine Laronga Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Stacy Tessler Lindau; Emily M Abramsohn; Shirley R Baron; Judith Florendo; Hope K Haefner; Anuja Jhingran; Vanessa Kennedy; Mukta K Krane; David M Kushner; Jennifer McComb; Diane F Merritt; Julie E Park; Amy Siston; Margaret Straub; Lauren Streicher Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 508.702