Gudjon L Gunnarsson1, Camilla Bille, Laurens C Reitsma, Peter Wamberg, Jørn Bo Thomsen. 1. Skien, Norway; and Odense/Vejle, Denmark From the Department of Plastic Surgery, Telemark Hospital; the Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital; and the Section for Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Vejle Lillebaelt Hospital.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy with simultaneous hammock technique direct-to-implant reconstruction is increasingly offered to patients opting for risk-reducing mastectomy. Despite this promising method, patients with macromastia and ptotic breasts remain a challenging group to treat satisfactorily and more often end up undergoing a difficult corrective procedure and experience an unacceptably high rate of failed reconstruction. The authors examined whether targeted preshaping mastopexy/reduction could prepare these patients for a successful nipple-sparing mastectomy/direct-to-implant reconstruction. METHODS: Patients seeking risk-reducing nipple-sparing mastectomy/direct-to-implant reconstruction at the authors' institutions deemed unfit for a one-stage procedure based on their previous experience were offered a targeted two-stage, risk-reducing mastopexy/reduction followed by a delayed secondary nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant reconstruction. Patients were followed up at 3 weeks and 6 or 12 months. RESULTS: Forty-four reconstructions were performed in 22 patients aged 43 years (range, 26 to 57 years). All 44 procedures were completed successfully without any failure or nipple-areola complex losses. Patients' median body mass index was 30 kg/m (range, 22 to 44 kg/m). Six patients were smokers and one had hypertension. Two patients underwent reoperation because of hematoma and fat necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results demonstrate that a targeted preshaping mastopexy/reduction followed by nipple-sparing mastectomy/direct-to-implant reconstruction can be safely planned in women who opt for a risk-reducing mastectomy and can be performed successfully with a 3- to 4-month time span between operations. On the basis of these results and the superior cosmetic outcome, the two-stage approach has become the authors' standard of care in all such settings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy with simultaneous hammock technique direct-to-implant reconstruction is increasingly offered to patients opting for risk-reducing mastectomy. Despite this promising method, patients with macromastia and ptotic breasts remain a challenging group to treat satisfactorily and more often end up undergoing a difficult corrective procedure and experience an unacceptably high rate of failed reconstruction. The authors examined whether targeted preshaping mastopexy/reduction could prepare these patients for a successful nipple-sparing mastectomy/direct-to-implant reconstruction. METHODS:Patients seeking risk-reducing nipple-sparing mastectomy/direct-to-implant reconstruction at the authors' institutions deemed unfit for a one-stage procedure based on their previous experience were offered a targeted two-stage, risk-reducing mastopexy/reduction followed by a delayed secondary nipple-sparing mastectomy and direct-to-implant reconstruction. Patients were followed up at 3 weeks and 6 or 12 months. RESULTS: Forty-four reconstructions were performed in 22 patients aged 43 years (range, 26 to 57 years). All 44 procedures were completed successfully without any failure or nipple-areola complex losses. Patients' median body mass index was 30 kg/m (range, 22 to 44 kg/m). Six patients were smokers and one had hypertension. Two patients underwent reoperation because of hematoma and fat necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results demonstrate that a targeted preshaping mastopexy/reduction followed by nipple-sparing mastectomy/direct-to-implant reconstruction can be safely planned in women who opt for a risk-reducing mastectomy and can be performed successfully with a 3- to 4-month time span between operations. On the basis of these results and the superior cosmetic outcome, the two-stage approach has become the authors' standard of care in all such settings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
Authors: Yunzhu Li; Xiaojun Wang; Jørn Bo Thomsen; Maurice Y Nahabedian; Naohiro Ishii; Warren M Rozen; Xiao Long; Yuh-Shan Ho Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-11
Authors: Walter P Weber; Martin Haug; Christian Kurzeder; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Rupert Koller; Roland Reitsamer; Florian Fitzal; Jorge Biazus; Fabricio Brenelli; Cicero Urban; Régis Resende Paulinelli; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Jörg Heil; Jürgen Hoffmann; Zoltan Matrai; Giuseppe Catanuto; Viviana Galimberti; Oreste Gentilini; Mitchel Barry; Tal Hadar; Tanir M Allweis; Oded Olsha; Maria João Cardoso; Pedro F Gouveia; Isabel T Rubio; Jana de Boniface; Tor Svensjö; Susanne Bucher; Peter Dubsky; Jian Farhadi; Mathias K Fehr; Ilario Fulco; Ursula Ganz-Blättler; Andreas Günthert; Yves Harder; Nik Hauser; Elisabeth A Kappos; Michael Knauer; Julia Landin; Robert Mechera; Francesco Meani; Giacomo Montagna; Mathilde Ritter; Ramon Saccilotto; Fabienne D Schwab; Daniel Steffens; Christoph Tausch; Jasmin Zeindler; Savas D Soysal; Visnu Lohsiriwat; Tibor Kovacs; Anne Tansley; Lynda Wyld; Laszlo Romics; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Andrea L Pusic; Virgilio Sacchini; Michael Gnant Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.872