BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy permits complete preservation of the nipple-areola complex with excellent aesthetic results and with oncologic safety similar to that associated with traditional mastectomy techniques. However, outcomes have not been directly compared for tissue expander-, immediate implant-, and autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: All patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy from 2006 to June of 2016 were identified at a single institution. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed and compared among different types of breast reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 1028 nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed. Of these, 533 (51.8 percent) were tissue expander-based, 263 (25.6 percent) were autologous tissue-based, and 232 (22.6 percent) were immediate implant-based reconstructions. Tissue expander-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0002) but less complete nipple necrosis (p = 0.0126) and major mastectomy flap necrosis (p < 0.0001) compared with autologous tissue-based reconstructions. Compared to immediate implant-based reconstruction, tissue expander-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0006) but less complete nipple necrosis (p = 0.0005) and major (p < 0.0001) and minor (p = 0.0028) mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0059). Immediate implant-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0051), minor mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0425), and partial nipple necrosis (p = 0.0437) compared with autologous tissue-based reconstructions. Outcomes were otherwise equivalent among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue expander, immediate implant, and autologous tissue breast reconstruction techniques may all be safely offered with nipple-sparing mastectomy. However, reconstructive complications appear to be greater with immediate implant- and autologous tissue-based techniques compared with tissue expander-based reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy permits complete preservation of the nipple-areola complex with excellent aesthetic results and with oncologic safety similar to that associated with traditional mastectomy techniques. However, outcomes have not been directly compared for tissue expander-, immediate implant-, and autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: All patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy from 2006 to June of 2016 were identified at a single institution. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed and compared among different types of breast reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 1028 nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed. Of these, 533 (51.8 percent) were tissue expander-based, 263 (25.6 percent) were autologous tissue-based, and 232 (22.6 percent) were immediate implant-based reconstructions. Tissue expander-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0002) but less complete nipple necrosis (p = 0.0126) and major mastectomy flap necrosis (p < 0.0001) compared with autologous tissue-based reconstructions. Compared to immediate implant-based reconstruction, tissue expander-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0006) but less complete nipple necrosis (p = 0.0005) and major (p < 0.0001) and minor (p = 0.0028) mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0059). Immediate implant-based reconstructions had significantly more minor cellulitis (p = 0.0051), minor mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0425), and partial nipple necrosis (p = 0.0437) compared with autologous tissue-based reconstructions. Outcomes were otherwise equivalent among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue expander, immediate implant, and autologous tissue breast reconstruction techniques may all be safely offered with nipple-sparing mastectomy. However, reconstructive complications appear to be greater with immediate implant- and autologous tissue-based techniques compared with tissue expander-based reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Authors: Carrie K Chu; Matthew J Davis; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Sebastian J Winocour; Albert Losken; Grant W Carlson Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.314