Ellen S Satteson1, Benjamin J Brown2, Maurice Y Nahabedian3. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 2. Gulf Coast Plastic Surgery, Pensacola, FL, USA. 3. Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction transforms a mound of soft tissue into a breast and often marks the final stage of breast reconstruction after mastectomy. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles were classified based on the nipple reconstructive technique-either composite nipple sharing or local flap with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) used as a control. A standardized "Satisfaction Score" (SS) for "nipple appearance" and "nipple sensation" was calculated for each technique. A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the SS with local flap reconstruction with NSM. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the systematic review inclusion criteria. Nine NSM articles were identified with patient satisfaction data from 473 patients. The weighted average SS for NSM was 80.5%. Fourteen local flap technique articles were identified with satisfaction data from 984 patients and a weighted average SS of 73.9%. This was a statistically significant difference (P=0.0079). C-V and badge local flap techniques were associated with the highest SS, 92.6% and 90.5%, respectively. C-V and modified C-V flap technique was associated with a higher SS when compared to those using one or more other flap techniques (P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While patient satisfaction with nipple reconstruction is high regardless of technique, it is higher with NSM. When NSM is not an option, local flap reconstruction with a C-V or modified C-V flap may be associated with higher satisfaction than alternative local flap techniques.
BACKGROUND: Nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction transforms a mound of soft tissue into a breast and often marks the final stage of breast reconstruction after mastectomy. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles were classified based on the nipple reconstructive technique-either composite nipple sharing or local flap with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) used as a control. A standardized "Satisfaction Score" (SS) for "nipple appearance" and "nipple sensation" was calculated for each technique. A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the SS with local flap reconstruction with NSM. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the systematic review inclusion criteria. Nine NSM articles were identified with patient satisfaction data from 473 patients. The weighted average SS for NSM was 80.5%. Fourteen local flap technique articles were identified with satisfaction data from 984 patients and a weighted average SS of 73.9%. This was a statistically significant difference (P=0.0079). C-V and badge local flap techniques were associated with the highest SS, 92.6% and 90.5%, respectively. C-V and modified C-V flap technique was associated with a higher SS when compared to those using one or more other flap techniques (P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While patient satisfaction with nipple reconstruction is high regardless of technique, it is higher with NSM. When NSM is not an option, local flap reconstruction with a C-V or modified C-V flap may be associated with higher satisfaction than alternative local flap techniques.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mastectomy; breast reconstruction; meta-analysis; nipple reconstruction; nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction; nipple-areola reconstruction; preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA)
Authors: Virgilio Sacchini; José A Pinotti; Alfredo C S D Barros; Alberto Luini; Alfonso Pluchinotta; Marianne Pinotti; Marcelo G Boratto; Marco D Ricci; Carlos A Ruiz; Antonio C Nisida; Paolo Veronesi; Jean Petit; Paolo Arnone; Fabio Bassi; Joseph J Disa; Carlos A Garcia-Etienne; Patrick I Borgen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Antonio J Esgueva; Iris Noordhoek; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Martin Espinosa-Bravo; Zoltán Mátrai; Andrii Zhygulin; Arvids Irmejs; Carlos Mavioso; Francesco Meani; Eduardo González; Murat Özdemir; Tanir Allweis; Karol Rogowski; Catarina Rodrigues Dos Santos; Henrique Mora; Riccardo Ponzone; Domenico Samorani; Cornelis van de Velde; Riccardo A Audisio; Isabel T Rubio Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Bridget N Kelly; Heather R Faulkner; Barbara L Smith; Jenna E Korotkin; Conor R Lanahan; Carson Brown; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht; Kevin S Hughes; T Salewa Oseni; Amy S Colwell; Suzanne B Coopey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 5.344
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
Authors: Hansje P Smeele; Rachel C H Dijkstra; Merel L Kimman; René R W J van der Hulst; Stefania M H Tuinder Journal: Patient Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.481