BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in results between the radial and the inframammary approach in nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. METHODS: The patients were divided into two groups (group 1: radial incision; group 2: inframammary fold incision [IMF]), each consisting of two subgroups for direct-to-implant reconstruction (1a, 2a) and expander reconstruction (1b, 2b). The patients were operated on between March 2012 and May 2017. Preoperative tumor parameters, reconstruction parameters, postoperative tumor parameters, and immediate and late complications were assessed. Postoperative photographs were evaluated by the patients and 8 plastic surgeons by means of grading (1-5) and the visual analog scale (VAS; 1-10). RESULTS: Enrolled in this study were 28 patients, namely, 7 patients in each subgroup. The median age was 46 years, and the median follow-up period was 40 months. No immediate complications occurred. Three patients had late complications, but there was no case of evident capsular fibrosis. Twenty-seven patients (96.42%) evaluated the postoperative result as excellent/good. The postoperative evaluation by the plastic surgeons was excellent/good for a median of 18 patients (64.28%). Group 1 showed a median VAS score of 7.63 (expander group: 7.50; direct-to-implant group: 7.75); the median VAS score for group 2 was 8.25 (expander group: 8.75; direct-to-implant group: 7.50). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows good results for implant breast reconstruction in both groups, with minimally better results for the IMF group. In the direct-to-implant subgroups, the radial group showed slightly better results.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in results between the radial and the inframammary approach in nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. METHODS: The patients were divided into two groups (group 1: radial incision; group 2: inframammary fold incision [IMF]), each consisting of two subgroups for direct-to-implant reconstruction (1a, 2a) and expander reconstruction (1b, 2b). The patients were operated on between March 2012 and May 2017. Preoperative tumor parameters, reconstruction parameters, postoperative tumor parameters, and immediate and late complications were assessed. Postoperative photographs were evaluated by the patients and 8 plastic surgeons by means of grading (1-5) and the visual analog scale (VAS; 1-10). RESULTS: Enrolled in this study were 28 patients, namely, 7 patients in each subgroup. The median age was 46 years, and the median follow-up period was 40 months. No immediate complications occurred. Three patients had late complications, but there was no case of evident capsular fibrosis. Twenty-seven patients (96.42%) evaluated the postoperative result as excellent/good. The postoperative evaluation by the plastic surgeons was excellent/good for a median of 18 patients (64.28%). Group 1 showed a median VAS score of 7.63 (expander group: 7.50; direct-to-implant group: 7.75); the median VAS score for group 2 was 8.25 (expander group: 8.75; direct-to-implant group: 7.50). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows good results for implant breast reconstruction in both groups, with minimally better results for the IMF group. In the direct-to-implant subgroups, the radial group showed slightly better results.
Authors: Y Ramon; Y Ullmann; R Moscona; E Ofiram; A Tamir; Y Har-Shai; H Toledano; A Barzilai; I J Peled Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Claudia R Albornoz; Peter B Bach; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa; Andrea L Pusic; Colleen M McCarthy; Peter G Cordeiro; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Georgia C Yalanis; Shayoni Nag; Jakob R Georgek; Carisa M Cooney; Michele A Manahan; Gedge D Rosson; Justin M Sacks Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2015-08-10