Literature DB >> 30204677

Incision Choices in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Comparative Analysis of Outcomes and Evolution of a Clinical Algorithm.

Jordan D Frey1, Ara A Salibian1, Jamie P Levine1, Nolan S Karp1, Mihye Choi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy allows for preservation of the entire nipple-areola complex using various incision patterns. Reconstructive trends and overall risk associated with these diverse nipple-sparing mastectomy incisions have yet to be fully elucidated.
METHODS: All nipple-sparing mastectomies from 2006 to 2017 were identified; outcomes were stratified by type of mastectomy incision: lateral or vertical radial, inframammary fold, Wise pattern, previous, and periareolar.
RESULTS: A total of 1207 nipple-sparing mastectomies were included for final analysis. Of these, 638 (52.9 percent) used an inframammary fold incision, 294 (24.4 percent) used a lateral radial incision, 161 (13.3 percent) used a vertical radial incision, 60 (5.0) used a Wise pattern incision, 35 (2.9 percent) used a previous incision, and 19 (1.6 percent) used a periareolar incision. The groups were heterogeneous and differed significantly with regard to various factors, including age (p < 0.001), body mass index (p < 0.001), reconstruction modality (p < 0.001), and others. In crude multivariate logistic regression analysis, vertical radial (16.1 percent) and inframammary fold incisions (21.0 percent) were associated with lower overall complication rates. In a reduced multivariate logistic regression model, inframammary fold incisions (p = 0.001) emerged as significantly protective of overall complications after controlling all variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Nipple-sparing mastectomy may be safely performed using various mastectomy incisions, each with unique advantages and limitations. Overall, inframammary fold incisions appear to be associated with the lowest risk, whereas Wise pattern incisions may increase risk. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30204677     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004969

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  6 in total

1.  Mastectomy Incision Design to Optimize Aesthetic Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Adi Maisel Lotan; Krystina C Tongson; Alice M Police; Wojciech Dec
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-09-24

2.  Outcome Analysis Depending on the Different Types of Incision following Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Soo Hyun Woo; Jin Mi Choi; Jin Sup Eom; Eun Key Kim; Hyun Ho Han
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 2.269

3.  Ischemic Complications after Nipple-sparing Mastectomy: Predictors of Reconstructive Failure in Implant-based Reconstruction and Implications for Decision-making.

Authors:  Ara A Salibian; Jordan D Frey; Jonathan M Bekisz; Nolan S Karp; Mihye Choi
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-05-23

4.  Nipple-sparing mastectomy through periareolar incision with immediate reconstruction.

Authors:  Se Hyun Paek; Seung Eun Hong; Kyong-Je Woo; Joohyun Woo; Woosung Lim
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 1.859

5.  Comparison of complications according to incision types in nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction.

Authors:  Soeun Park; Changik Yoon; Soong June Bae; Chihwan Cha; Dooreh Kim; Janghee Lee; Sung Gwe Ahn; Tai Suk Roh; Young Seok Kim; Joon Jeong
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  What Is in a Number? Evaluating a Risk Assessment Tool in Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jordan D Frey; Ara A Salibian; Jonathan M Bekisz; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp; Vishal D Thanik
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-12-31
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.