Literature DB >> 22350788

Why do women accept to undergo a nipple sparing mastectomy or to reconstruct the nipple areola complex when nipple sparing mastectomy is not possible?

F Didier1, P Arnaboldi, S Gandini, A Maldifassi, A Goldhirsch, D Radice, I Minotti, B Ballardini, A Luini, B Santillo, M Rietjens, J Y Petit.   

Abstract

In a retrospective study, we investigated the reasons why women accepted to undergo a nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) and why women who could not keep their nipple areola complex (NAC) decided to reconstruct it. We intended to investigate whether keeping the NAC plays a psychological role, to state possible advantages of NSM. Between 2004 and 2006, 310 women with NAC sparing and 143 patients with successive NAC reconstruction were mailed a single open-ended question at follow-up 12 months after final breast reconstruction surgery or final NAC reconstruction with tattoo. The purpose was to explore personal motivations that drove women to accept NSM or to perform a NAC tattoo reconstruction. Responses were classified into 11 categories by five reviewers. We performed an analysis of the relative frequency of emerging issues. Socio-demographic and clinical data were collected. Among the patients who responded to the open-ended question, 190 patients preserved their NAC, and 100 patients received postponed NAC reconstruction. Women in the NSM group were significantly younger (P = 0.02), more highly educated (P < 0.0001), and more frequently lived in Northern Italy (P = 0.03). The reasons for accepting NSM were more frequently related to body image satisfaction and integrity of the body (P = 0.002), reduction of psychological distress (P = 0.003), and surgeon's influence (P < 0.0001). Esthetic reasons were highly associated to the control group. These results help us to better understand the psychological impact of NAC sparing versus NAC reconstruction. NSM was accepted because it was perceived as a technique that preserved the integrity of the body, reduced the feeling of mutilation, improved the breast cosmetic results, and reduced psychological distress regarding the loss of the breast.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22350788     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-1983-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  15 in total

Review 1.  Anatomy of the nipple and breast ducts.

Authors:  Gustavo Zucca-Matthes; Cícero Urban; André Vallejo
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-02

2.  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

3.  Nipple Sparing Mastectomy: from prophylactic to therapeutic standard.

Authors:  Visnu Lohsiriwat; JeanYves Petit
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2012-08

4.  Nipple-areola-complex sparing mastectomy: five years of experience in a single centre.

Authors:  Antonio Tancredi; Luigi Ciuffreda; Lucia Petito; Francesca Natale; Roberto Murgo
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2013-07-26

Review 5.  Oncologic safety of conservative mastectomy in the therapeutic setting.

Authors:  John R Benson; Dorin Dumitru; Charles M Malata
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-02

6.  Characterization of an Acellular Scaffold for a Tissue Engineering Approach to the Nipple-Areolar Complex Reconstruction.

Authors:  Nicholas C Pashos; Michelle E Scarritt; Zachary R Eagle; Jeffrey M Gimble; Abigail E Chaffin; Bruce A Bunnell
Journal:  Cells Tissues Organs       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 2.481

7.  Dual Extrusion Patterning Drives Tissue Development Aesthetics and Shape Retention in 3D Printed Nipple-Areola Constructs.

Authors:  Sarah Van Belleghem; Bhushan Mahadik; Kirstie Snodderly; Zoe Mote; Bin Jiang; Justine R Yu; Shannon McLoughlin; Xiaoming He; Arthur J Nam; John P Fisher
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 9.933

8.  Acellular Biologic Nipple-Areolar Complex Graft: In Vivo Murine and Nonhuman Primate Host Response Evaluation.

Authors:  Nicholas C Pashos; David M Graham; Brian J Burkett; Ben O'Donnell; Rachel A Sabol; Joshua Helm; Elizabeth C Martin; Annie C Bowles; William M Heim; Vince C Caronna; Kristin S Miller; Brooke Grasperge; Scott Sullivan; Abigail E Chaffin; Bruce A Bunnell
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 3.845

9.  Nipple-areolar Complex Reconstruction following Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Utility Assessment Study.

Authors:  Ahmed M S Ibrahim; Hani H Sinno; Ali Izadpanah; Joshua Vorstenbosch; Tassos Dionisopoulos; Marc A M Mureau; Adam M Tobias; Bernard T Lee; Samuel J Lin
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2015-05-07

10.  Comparison of Outcomes between Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy through Inframammary Fold Incision versus Noninframammary Fold Incision.

Authors:  Tai Suk Roh; Jae Yoon Kim; Bok Ki Jung; Joon Jeong; Sung Gwe Ahn; Young Seok Kim
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 3.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.