BACKGROUND: Although autologous microvascular reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is considered one of the best reconstructive choices, this procedure cannot be offered to all patients. The aim of this study was to define a fat grafting protocol for successful reconstruction following NSM and to assess its reliability in irradiated and non-irradiated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients were prospectively enrolled and stratified in Group-A (11 non-irradiated) and Group-B (10 irradiated) NSMs comparing clinical and aesthetic outcomes. A fat grafting protocol was used to standardize the procedure. Continuous and categorical variables were analysed using the Student t test and the Kruskal-Wallis test, respectively. A value of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous in terms of demographics (p > 0.05), while number of sessions, mean volume of the first two treatments, and overall injected volume showed significant differences (p < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.002). Volume, shape, position of the breast mound, IMF and scar location subscales obtained high score evaluations without a significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05), whereas the skin texture subscale showed a lower score evaluation in Group-B than in Group-A (p = 0.001). Although a significant difference for total subscales was in favour of Group-A (p = 0.001), the global score had a high rate evaluation in both groups (p = 0.132). Inter-rater reliability showed substantial agreement among all categories, total and global scores. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective series of fat transfer reconstructions following NSM using a systematic approach. Although further studies are required, it may be considered an effective option whenever flap reconstruction cannot be performed. 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.
BACKGROUND: Although autologous microvascular reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is considered one of the best reconstructive choices, this procedure cannot be offered to all patients. The aim of this study was to define a fat grafting protocol for successful reconstruction following NSM and to assess its reliability in irradiated and non-irradiated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients were prospectively enrolled and stratified in Group-A (11 non-irradiated) and Group-B (10 irradiated) NSMs comparing clinical and aesthetic outcomes. A fat grafting protocol was used to standardize the procedure. Continuous and categorical variables were analysed using the Student t test and the Kruskal-Wallis test, respectively. A value of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous in terms of demographics (p > 0.05), while number of sessions, mean volume of the first two treatments, and overall injected volume showed significant differences (p < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.002). Volume, shape, position of the breast mound, IMF and scar location subscales obtained high score evaluations without a significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05), whereas the skin texture subscale showed a lower score evaluation in Group-B than in Group-A (p = 0.001). Although a significant difference for total subscales was in favour of Group-A (p = 0.001), the global score had a high rate evaluation in both groups (p = 0.132). Inter-rater reliability showed substantial agreement among all categories, total and global scores. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective series of fat transfer reconstructions following NSM using a systematic approach. Although further studies are required, it may be considered an effective option whenever flap reconstruction cannot be performed. 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.