Showing posts with label Nipple conservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nipple conservation. Show all posts

Thursday, 10 February 2022

 


Superior Hemimastectomy with Inferior Pedicle Nipple-Bearing Flap: A Five-Step Surgical Technique

 

by Morante, Lea; El Hajj, Houssein; Delecourt, Camille; Sabiani, Laura; Bannier, Marie; Rua, Sandrine; Barrou, Julien; Lambaudie, Eric; Houvenaeghel, Gilles; Cohen, Monique 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: January 2022 - Volume 149 - Issue 1 - p 13e-17e

 

Oncoplastic breast surgery is an evolving field combining both breast aesthetic surgery and oncologic breast surgery. It aims to optimize cosmetic outcomes without interfering with oncologic safety. The superior hemimastectomy is a technique that can be considered for large upper-quadrant breast tumors or multifocal and multicentric breast tumors localized in the upper quadrants. As with mastectomy, axillary procedures can be performed through the same incision. The nipple-areola complex can be preserved and reimplanted. Superior hemimastectomy allows wide excision of the breast tissue, but its main disadvantage is the increased risk of necrosis of the free grafted nipple-areola complex. In this article, the authors present the surgical technique of superior hemimastectomy with an inferior pedicle nipple-bearing flap. This technique is presented as a simple five-step algorithm. A modified superior hemimastectomy with nipple-areola complex preservation using an inferior pedicle nipple-bearing flap is an alternative to the classic superior hemimastectomy technique. This modified technique decreases the risk of nipple-areola complex necrosis and preserves better nipple-areola complex sensitivity.

Tuesday, 25 February 2020

Predicting Ischemic Complications in the Inframammary Approach to Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: The Midclavicular-to–Inframammary Fold Measurement



by Willey, Shawna C.; Fan, Kenneth L.; Luvisa, Kyle; Graziano, Francis D.; Lau, Stephanie H. Y.; Black, Cara K.; Song, David H.; Pittman, Troy

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: February 2020 - Volume 145 - Issue 2 - p 251e-262e


Background: The authors refine their anatomical patient selection criteria with a novel midclavicular-to–inframammary fold measurement for nipple-sparing mastectomy performed through an inframammary approach.
Methods: Retrospective review was performed of all nipple-sparing mastectomies performed through an inframammary approach. Exclusion criteria included other mastectomy incisions, staged mastectomy, previous breast operation, and autologous reconstruction. Preoperative anatomical measurements for each breast, clinical course, and specimen weight were obtained.
Results: One hundred forty breasts in 79 patients were analyzed. Mastectomy weight, but not sternal notch–to-nipple distance, was strongly correlated with midclavicular-to–inframammary fold measurement on linear regression (R2 = 0.651; p < 0.001). Mastectomy weight was not correlated with ptosis. Twenty-five breasts (17.8 percent) had ischemic complications: 16 (11.4 percent) were nonoperative and nine (6.4 percent) were operative. Those with mastectomy weights of 500 g or greater were nine times more likely to have operative ischemic complications than those with mastectomy weights less than 500 g (p = 0.0048). Those with a midclavicular-to–inframammary fold measurement of 30 cm or greater had a 3.8 times increased incidence of any ischemic complication (p = 0.00547) and a 9.2 times increased incidence of operative ischemic complications (p = 0.00376) compared with those whose midclavicular-to–inframammary fold measurement was less than 30 cm.
Conclusions: Breasts undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy by means of an inframammary approach with midclavicular-to–inframammary fold measurement greater than or equal to 30 cm are at higher risk for having ischemic complications, warranting consideration for a staged approach or other incision. The midclavicular-to–inframammary fold measurement is useful for assessing the entire breast and predicting the likelihood of ischemic complications in inframammary nipple-sparing mastectomies. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.


Friday, 14 December 2018

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



by Frey, Jordan D.; Salibian, Ara A.; Levine, Jamie P.; Karp, Nolan S.; Choi, Mihye  

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: December 2018 - Volume 142 - Issue 6 - p 826e–835e

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.

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

Comparing Therapeutic versus Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Does Indication Inform Oncologic and Reconstructive Outcomes?



by Frey, Jordan D.; Salibian, Ara A.; Karp, Nolan S.; Choi, Mihye  


Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: August 2018 - Volume 142 - Issue 2 - p 306–315

Background: Initially performed only in prophylactic cases, indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy have expanded. Trends and surgical outcomes stratified by nipple-sparing mastectomy indication have not yet been fully examined. Methods: Demographics and outcomes for all nipple-sparing mastectomies performed from 2006 to 2017 were compared by mastectomy indication. Results: A total of 1212 nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed: 496 (40.9 percent) for therapeutic and 716 (59.1 percent) for prophylactic indications. Follow-up time was similar between both the therapeutic and prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy groups (47.35 versus 46.83 months, respectively; p = 0.7942). Therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomies experienced significantly greater rates of major (p = 0.0165) and minor (p = 0.0421) infection, implant loss (p = 0.0098), reconstructive failure (p = 0.0058), and seroma (p = 0.0043). Rates of major (p = 0.4461) and minor (p = 0.2673) mastectomy flap necrosis and complete (p = 0.3445) and partial (p = 0.7120) nipple necrosis were equivalent. The overall rate of locoregional recurrence/occurrence per nipple-sparing mastectomy was 0.9 percent: 2.0 percent in therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomies and 0.1 percent in prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomies (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Approximately 40 percent of nipple-sparing mastectomies are currently performed for therapeutic indications. Therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomies had higher rates of infectious complications and reconstructive failure. Rates of locoregional cancer recurrence/occurrence are low, but occur significantly more often after therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Thursday, 5 July 2018

The Impact of Mastectomy Weight on Reconstructive Trends and Outcomes in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Progressively Greater Complications with Larger Breast Size



 by Frey, Jordan D.; Salibian, Ara A.; Karp, Nolan S.; Choi, Mihye  



Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: June 2018 - Volume 141 - Issue 6 - p 795e–804e

Background: Reconstructive trends and outcomes for nipple-sparing mastectomy continue to be defined. The graduated impact of breast size and mastectomy weight remains incompletely evaluated. Methods: All patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy from 2006 to June of 2016 were identified. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed and stratified by mastectomy weight of 800 g or higher (large group), between 799 and 400 g (intermediate group), and less than 400 g (small group). Results: Of 809 nipple-sparing mastectomies, 66 (8.2 percent) had mastectomy weights of 800 g or higher, 328 (40.5 percent) had mastectomy weights between 799 and 400 g, and 415 nipple-sparing mastectomies (51.3 percent) had mastectomy weights less than 400 g. Nipple-sparing mastectomies in the large group were significantly more likely to be associated with major mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0005), complete nipple-areola complex necrosis (p < 0.0001), explantation (p < 0.0001), cellulitis treated with oral (p = 0.0008) and intravenous (p = 0.0126) antibiotics, abscess (p = 0.0254), and seroma (p = 0.0126) compared with those in the intermediate group. Compared with small nipple-sparing mastectomies, patients in the large group had greater major mastectomy flap necrosis (p < 0.0001), complete (p < 0.0001) and partial (p = 0.0409) nipple-areola complex necrosis, explantation (p < 0.0001), cellulitis treated with oral (p < 0.0001) and intravenous (p < 0.0001) antibiotics, abscess (p = 0.0119), and seroma (p < 0.0001). Patients in the intermediate group were more likely to experience major (p < 0.0001) and minor (p < 0.0001) mastectomy flap necrosis, complete (p = 0.0015) and partial (p < 0.0001) nipple-areola complex necrosis, cellulitis treated with oral antibiotics (p = 0.0062), and seroma (p = 0.0248) compared with those undergoing small nipple-sparing mastectomies. Larger mastectomy weights were significant predictors of complications on logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: Reconstructive and ischemic complications in nipple-sparing mastectomy are progressively greater as mastectomy weight and breast size increase. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Thursday, 4 September 2014

Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with prior breast irradiation

Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with prior breast irradiation: Are patients at higher risk for reconstructive complications? Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Aug 2014, Vol. 134(2), p.202e-206e.

Alperovich, M., et al.

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/2014/08000/Nipple_Sparing_Mastectomy_in_Patients_with_Prior.6.aspx

Reconstruction in the setting of prior breast irradiation is conventionally considered a higher-risk procedure. Limited data exist regarding nipple-sparing mastectomy in irradiated breasts, a higher-risk procedure in higher-risk patients.

Monday, 24 February 2014

Predictors of nipple ischemia after nipple sparing mastectomy

Predictors of nipple ischemia after nipple sparing mastectomy. The breast journal, Jan/Feb 2014, Vol. 20(1), p.69-73.

Carlson, G.W., et al.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tbj.12208/full

Nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become an accepted approach in selected cases of breast cancer and prophylactic mastectomy. Various surgical techniques have been described and nipple ischemia has been a common complication. Potential risk factors for nipple ischemia after NSM are examined. To examine predisposing factors for nipple ischemia after NSM. Prospective evaluation of 71 consecutive NSM in 45 patients from 2009 to 2011 was performed.


Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Inframammary approach to nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy

Inframammary approach to nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, Nov 2013, Vol. 132(5), p.700e-708e.

Salibian, A.H, et al.

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/2013/11000/Inframammary_Approach_to_Nipple_Areola_Sparing.2.aspx

Different approaches have been advocated for performing nipple-areola–sparing mastectomy. The inframammary approach has been viewed as having limited applications, particularly in large breasts. The authors review their experience with nipple-areola–sparing mastectomy using the inframammary approach for different breast sizes.


Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy

Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: A systematic review of the literature with pooled analysis. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, Nov 2013, Vol. 132(5), p.1043-54.

Endara, M., et al.

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Fulltext/2013/11000/Breast_Reconstruction_following_Nipple_Sparing.1.aspx

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a controversial option for breast cancer treatment due to locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis. In addition to these oncologic factors, technical factors such as ideal incision type or reconstructive options are also debatable. This systematic review examines current trends with nipple-sparing mastectomy, including selection criteria, locoregional and distant metastasis rates, incision choice, and reconstructive options.

Thursday, 3 October 2013

Impact of surgical techniques, biomaterials and patient variables on rate of nipple necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy

Impact of surgical techniques, biomaterials and patient variables on rate of nipple necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, Sept 2013, Vol. 132(3), p.330e-338e.

Gould, D.J., et al.

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/2013/09000/Impact_of_Surgical_Techniques,_Biomaterials,_and.4.aspx

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is appropriate for selected patients with early-stage breast cancer or high breast cancer risk. However, the postoperative rate of nipple necrosis is relatively high (10 to 30 percent). This study analyzed the impact of clinicopathologic and surgical variables on partial and total nipple necrosis rates after nipple-sparing mastectomy and compared overall complication rates between nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy.

Thursday, 13 June 2013

Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with a history of reduction mammaplasty or mastoplexy

Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with a history of reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy: How safe is it? Plastic and reconstructive surgery, May 2013, Vol. 131(5), p.962-97

Alperovich, M., et al.

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/2013/05000/Nipple_Sparing_Mastectomy_in_Patients_with_a.9.aspx

Nipple-sparing mastectomy has gained popularity, but the question remains of whether it can be offered safely to women with a history of reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy. The authors present their experience with nipple-sparing mastectomy in this patient population.

The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer

The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: A comprehensive review of the literature. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, May 2013, Vol. 131(5), p.969-984

Mallon, P., et al.

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/2013/05000/The_Role_of_Nipple_Sparing_Mastectomy_in_Breast.11.aspx

The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer is controversial, as there is concern regarding its oncologic safety and complication rate. The authors reviewed the literature to quantify the incidence of occult nipple malignancy in breast cancer, identify the factors influencing occult nipple malignancy, quantify loco-regional recurrence rates, and quantify nipple-sparing mastectomy complication rates.

Wednesday, 10 March 2010

Annals of Surgery March 2010 Vol 251 Iss 3

p488-492
Prophylactic Mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Very Low Risk for Subsequent Breast Cancer
Reinoutje Kaas, MD, PhD; Senno Verhoef, MD, PhD; Jelle Wesseling et al

p493-498
Nipple Areola Skin-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Transverse Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous Flap Reconstruction is an Oncologically Safe Procedure: A Single Center Study
Hee Jeong Kim, MD, PhD; Eun Hwa Park, MD; Woo Sung Lim, MD; Jin Young Seo et al

p499-505
Circulating microRNAs as Novel Minimally Invasive Biomarkers for Breast Cancer
Helen M. Heneghan, MD; Nicola Miller, PhD; Aoife J. Lowery, MD; Karl J. Sweeney et al

British Journal of Surgery Vol 97 Iss 3 2010

Reviews
p 305-316
Nipple-sparing mastectomy
J. E. Rusby, B. L. Smith, G. P. H. Gui
Abstract
Published Online: 25 Jan 2010

Correspondences
p 455
Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer guided by indocyanine green fluorescence (Br J Surg 2009; 96: 1289-1294)
C.-C. Chiu
Abstract
Published Online: 5 Feb 2010

p 455-456
Authors' reply: Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer guided by indocyanine green fluorescence (Br J Surg 2009; 96: 1289-1294)
D. Murawa, C. Hirche, S. Dresel, M. Hünerbein
Abstract
Published Online: 5 Feb 2010

Monday, 28 September 2009

Articles from Annals of Surgery

August 2009, Volume 250, Issue 2
p.288-292
Subcutaneous Mastectomy With Conservation of the Nipple-Areola Skin: Broadening the Indications
Stefan Paepke, MD; Rainer Schmid, MD; Stefanie Fleckner; Daniela Paepke et al

October 2009, Volume 250, Issue 4
p.558-566
Sentinel Lymph Node Surgery After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy is Accurate and Reduces the Need for Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer Patients
Kelly K. Hunt, MD; Min Yi, MS; Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, MD; Cynthia Guerrero, et al

Letters
p. 657-658
Breast Cancer: Is Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Safe?
J Arthur Jensen
p. 658-659
Breast Cancer: Is Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Safe?
Bernd Gerber, MD, PhD; Annette Krause, MD; Max Dieterich, MD; Toralf Reimer, MD, PhD; Günther Kundt