Literature DB >> 32238306

Robotic versus conventional nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate gel implant breast reconstruction in the management of breast cancer- A case control comparison study with analysis of clinical outcome, medical cost, and patient-reported cosmetic results.

Hung-Wen Lai1, Shou-Tung Chen2, Chi Wei Mok3, Ying-Jen Lin4, Hwa-Koon Wu5, Shih-Lung Lin6, Dar-Ren Chen7, Shou-Jen Kuo8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM), which uses the da Vinci surgical platform, could perform NSM and immediate breast reconstruction through a small and inconspicuous extra-mammary axillary or lateral chest incision. R-NSM was reported with extremely low nipple areolar complex (NAC) necrosis rate, good cosmetic results, and high patient satisfaction. However, there was little evidence available comparing the effectiveness and safety of R-NSM and conventional NSM (C-NSM) in the management of breast cancer.
METHODS: A case control comparison study was conducted for patients with breast cancer who underwent R-NSM or C-NSM with immediate gel implant breast reconstruction (IGBR) from July 2011 to September 2019 at a single institution to compare the clinical outcomes, patient-reported esthetic results, and medical cost.
RESULTS: According to the study design, 54 procedures of R-NSM were compared with 62 procedures of C-NSM in the surgical management of breast cancer combined with IGBR. Compared with C-NSM, R-NSM was associated with higher overall satisfaction (92% excellent and 8% good versus 75.6% excellent and 24.4% good, P = 0.046), and wound/scar related outcome in patient-reported esthetic results. The NAC ischemia/necrosis risk, overall complication rate, and blood loss were not significantly different between R-NSM and C-NSM groups. However, longer operation time and higher overall medical cost (10,877 ± 796 versus 5,702 ± 661 US Dollars, P<0.01) was observed in R-NSM group.
CONCLUSION: Compared with C-NSM, R-NSM showed comparable clinical outcomes and favorable patients' satisfaction with the esthetic results, but at the price of longer operation time and higher cost.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conventional nipple sparing mastectomy (C-NSM); Immediate gel implant breast reconstruction (IGBR); Medical cost; Nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM); Robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM)

Year:  2020        PMID: 32238306     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.02.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  9 in total

1.  Breakthrough in breast reconstruction in the context of COVID-19: safety and efficiency of endoscopic breast reconstruction at a day surgery center.

Authors:  Jiao Zhou; Xinran Liu; Yu Feng; Juan Li; Xiangquan Qin; Yixuan Huang; Huanzuo Yang; Mengxue Qiu; Yang Liu; Hongsheng Ma; Qing Lv; Zhenggui Du
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-08

2.  Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic and Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction: International Multicenter Pooled Data Analysis.

Authors:  Hyung Seok Park; Jeea Lee; Hung-Wen Lai; Jung Mi Park; Jai Min Ryu; Jeong Eon Lee; Jee Ye Kim; Emilia Marrazzo; Alessandra Margherita De Scalzi; Giovanni Corso; Filippo Montemurro; Guglielmo Gazzetta; Giada Pozzi; Antonio Toesca
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 4.339

3.  Efficacy of the Whole-Course Case Management Model on Compliance and Satisfaction of Breast Cancer Patients with Whole-Course Standardized Treatment.

Authors:  Lijun Jin; Yunyan Zhao; Peng Wang; Ran Zhu; Jie Bai; Jie Li; Xue Jia; Zunyi Wang
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 4.501

4.  Robotic Versus Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Gilles Houvenaeghel; Julien Barrou; Camille Jauffret; Sandrine Rua; Laura Sabiani; Aurore Van Troy; Max Buttarelli; Guillaume Blache; Eric Lambaudie; Monique Cohen; Marie Bannier
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Postoperative pain assessment of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate prepectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a comparison with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  Jiae Moon; Jeea Lee; Dong Won Lee; Hye Sun Lee; Da Jung Nam; Min Jung Kim; Na Young Kim; Hyung Seok Park
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2021-04-17       Impact factor: 3.738

6.  Minimal Access (Endoscopic and Robotic) Breast Surgery in the Surgical Treatment of Early Breast Cancer-Trend and Clinical Outcome From a Single-Surgeon Experience Over 10 Years.

Authors:  Hung-Wen Lai; Shou-Tung Chen; Ying-Jen Lin; Shih-Lung Lin; Ching-Min Lin; Dar-Ren Chen; Shou-Jen Kuo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  From cadaveric and animal studies to the clinical reality of robotic mastectomy: a feasibility report of training program.

Authors:  Jeea Lee; Hyung Seok Park; Dong Won Lee; Seung Yong Song; Jonghan Yu; Jai Min Ryu; Soong June Bae; Dea Hyun Lew; Seung Il Kim; Antonio Toesca
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  The Application of Whole-Process Case Management in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Yunyan Zhao; Ran Zhu; Jie Bai; Jie Li; Xue Jia; Peng Wang; Lijun Jin
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 4.375

9.  Clinical outcomes following robotic versus conventional DIEP flap in breast reconstruction: A retrospective matched study.

Authors:  Min Jeong Lee; Jongmin Won; Seung Yong Song; Hyung Seok Park; Jee Ye Kim; Hye Jung Shin; Young In Kwon; Dong Won Lee; Na Young Kim
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 5.738

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.