J Breast Cancer.  2018 Jun;21(2):213-221. 10.4048/jbc.2018.21.2.213.

Comparison of Outcomes between Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy through Inframammary Fold Incision versus Noninframammary Fold Incision

• Roh TS
• Kim JY
• Jung BK
• Jeong J
• Ahn SG
• Kim YS

• KMID: 2413941
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2018.21.2.213

Abstract

PURPOSE
In properly selected patients with breast cancer, nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is generally considered safe by oncologic standards. We examined two groups of patients who underwent direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction after NSM, comparing complications encountered, revision rates, and aesthetic outcomes. The patients were stratified based on type of surgical incision and assigned to inframammary fold (IMF) and non-IMF groups.
METHODS
We investigated 141 patients (145 breasts) subjected to NSM and immediate DTI reconstruction between 2013 and 2016. A total of 62 breasts (in 58 patients) were surgically removed via IMF incisions, with the other 83 breasts (in 83 patients) removed by non-IMF means.
RESULTS
Complications associated with IMF (n=62) and non-IMF (n=83) incisions were as follows: skin necrosis (IMF, 9; non-IMF, 18); hematoma (IMF, 3; non-IMF, 4); seroma (IMF, 8; non-IMF, 4); mild capsular contracture (IMF, 4; non-IMF, 7); and tumor recurrence (IMF, 2; non-IMF, 8). Surgical revisions were counted as duplicates (IMF, 18; non-IMF, 38). Aesthetic outcomes following IMF incisions were rated as very good (44.2%), good (23.1%), fair (23.1%), or poor (9.6%).
CONCLUSION
IMF incision enables complete preservation of the nipple-areolar complex, yielding superior aesthetic results in immediate DTI breast reconstruction after NSM. The nature of incision used had no significant impact on postoperative complications or reoperation rates and had comparable oncologic safety to that of non-IMF incisions. IMF incisions produced the least visible scarring and did not affect breast shape. Most patients were satisfied with the aesthetic outcomes.

Keyword

Breast implants; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy

MeSH Terms

Breast Implants
Breast Neoplasms
Breast*
Cicatrix
Contracture
Female
Hematoma
Humans
Mammaplasty*
Mastectomy*
Necrosis
Postoperative Complications
Recurrence
Reoperation
Seroma
Skin

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Representative reconstructive outcome: a 43-year-old woman with ductal carcinoma in situ of left breast. (A) Preoperative view. (B) Symmetric nipple-areolar complex position and breast shape in immediate postoperative state.

• 

  Figure 2 Representative reconstructive outcome: a 40-year-old woman with mucinous carcinoma of left breast. (A) Preoperative status, prior to nipple-sparing mastectomy (via inframammary incision) removing 464 g of tissue. (B) Outcome 6 months after immediate direct-to-implant reconstruction.

Reference

1. Didier F, Radice D, Gandini S, Bedolis R, Rotmensz N, Maldifassi A, et al. Does nipple preservation in mastectomy improve satisfaction with cosmetic results, psychological adjustment, body image and sexuality? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009; 118:623–633. PMID: 19003526.

2. Didier F, Arnaboldi P, Gandini S, Maldifassi A, Goldhirsch A, Radice D, et al. Why do women accept to undergo a nipple sparing mastectomy or to reconstruct the nipple areola complex when nipple sparing mastectomy is not possible? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012; 132:1177–1184. PMID: 22350788.

3. Jensen JA, Orringer JS, Giuliano AE. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in 99 patients with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18:1665–1670. PMID: 21174155.

4. Jensen JA. Breast cancer: is nipple sparing mastectomy safe? Ann Surg. 2009; 250:657–658. PMID: 19710601.

5. Crile G Jr, Esselstyn CB Jr, Hermann RE, Hoerr SO. Partial mastectomy for carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1973; 136:929–933. PMID: 4349981.

6. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 131:15–23. PMID: 23271515.

7. Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, Chabner-Thompson E. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 127:514–524. PMID: 21285756.

8. Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, Medford-Davis L, Hertl C, Austen WG Jr. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 128:1170–1178. PMID: 22094736.

9. Colwell AS. Current strategies with 1-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2015; 4:111–115. PMID: 26005643.

10. Pusic AL, Cordeiro PG. Breast reconstruction with tissue expanders and implants: a practical guide to immediate and delayed reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2004; 18:71–77. PMID: 20574485.

11. Spear SL, Seruya M, Rao SS, Rottman S, Stolle E, Cohen M, et al. Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction using AlloDerm including outcomes of different timings of radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 130:1–9.

12. Regolo L, Ballardini B, Gallarotti E, Scoccia E, Zanini V. Nipple sparing mastectomy: an innovative skin incision for an alternative approach. Breast. 2008; 17:8–11. PMID: 17870535.

13. Boneti C, Yuen J, Santiago C, Diaz Z, Robertson Y, Korourian S, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple skin-sparing or total skin-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg. 2011; 212:686–693. PMID: 21463813.

14. Colwell AS, Gadd M, Smith BL, Austen WG Jr. An inferolateral approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy: optimizing mastectomy and reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2010; 65:140–143. PMID: 20606592.

15. Maxwell GP, Storm-Dickerson T, Whitworth P, Rubano C, Gabriel A. Advances in nipple-sparing mastectomy: oncological safety and incision selection. Aesthet Surg J. 2011; 31:310–319. PMID: 21385742.

16. Endara M, Chen D, Verma K, Nahabedian MY, Spear SL. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with pooled analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 132:1043–1054. PMID: 23924650.

17. Yueh JH, Houlihan MJ, Slavin SA, Lee BT, Pories SE, Morris DJ. Nipplesparing mastectomy: evaluation of patient satisfaction, aesthetic results, and sensation. Ann Plast Surg. 2009; 62:586–590. PMID: 19387167.

18. Blechman KM, Karp NS, Levovitz C, Guth AA, Axelrod DM, Shapiro RL, et al. The lateral inframammary fold incision for nipple-sparing mastectomy: outcomes from over 50 immediate implant-based breast reconstructions. Breast J. 2013; 19:31–40. PMID: 23252505.

19. Schlesinger SL, Ellenbogen R, Desvigne MN, Svehlak S, Heck R. Zafirlukast (Accolate): a new treatment for capsular contracture. Aesthet Surg J. 2002; 22:329–336. PMID: 19331987.

20. Schlesinger SL, Desvigne MN, Ellenbogen R, Svehlak S, Heck R. Results of using zafirlukast (Accolate) and montelukast (Singulair) for treatment of capsular contracture. Aesthet Surg J. 2003; 23:101–102.

21. Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Inframammary approach to nipple-areola-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 132:700e–708e.

22. Rusby JE, Smith BL, Gui GP. Nipple-sparing mastectomy. Br J Surg. 2010; 97:305–316. PMID: 20101646.

23. de Alcantara Filho P, Capko D, Barry JM, Morrow M, Pusic A, Sacchini VS. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18:3117–3122. PMID: 21847697.

24. Spear SL, Willey SC, Feldman ED, Cocilovo C, Sidawy M, Al-Attar A, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for prophylactic and therapeutic indications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 128:1005–1014. PMID: 21738086.

25. Benediktsson KP, Perbeck L. Survival in breast cancer after nipplesparing subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants: a prospective trial with 13 years median follow-up in 216 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008; 34:143–148. PMID: 17709228.

26. Verheyden CN. Nipple-sparing total mastectomy of large breasts: the role of tissue expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 101:1494–1500. PMID: 9583478.

27. Newman LA, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Kroll SS, Ames FC, Ross MI, et al. Presentation, treatment, and outcome of local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998; 5:620–626. PMID: 9831111.

28. Kroll SS, Ames F, Singletary SE, Schusterman MA. The oncologic risks of skin preservation at mastectomy when combined with immediate reconstruction of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991; 172:17–20.

29. Djohan R, Gage E, Gatherwright J, Pavri S, Firouz J, Bernard S, et al. Patient satisfaction following nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: an 8-year outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 125:818–829. PMID: 20195110.

30. Mosahebi A, Ramakrishnan V, Gittos M, Collier J. Aesthetic outcome of different techniques of reconstruction following nipple-areola-preserving envelope mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007; 119:796–803. PMID: 17312480.