Robotic Versus Conventional or Endoscopic-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Prospectively Designed Multicenter Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, and Patient-reported Outcomes (RCENSM-P).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of minimal access and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM). The secondary outcomes investigated included medical costs and oncological safety. BACKGROUND: Minimal-access NSM has been increasingly applied in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. However, prospective multicenter trials comparing robotic-assisted NSM (R-NSM) versus C-NSM or endoscopic-assisted NSM (E-NSM) are lacking. METHODS: A prospectively designed 3-arm multicenter, nonrandomized trial (NCT04037852) was conducted from October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, to compare R-NSM with C-NSM or E-NSM. RESULTS: A total of 73 R-NSM, 74 C-NSM, and 84 E-NSM procedures were enrolled. The median wound length and operation time of C-NSM was (9 cm, 175 minutes), (4 cm, and 195 minutes) in R-NSM, and (4 cm and 222 minutes) in E-NSM. Complications were comparable among the groups. Better wound healing was observed in the minimal-access NSM group. The R-NSM procedure was 4000 and 2600 United States Dollars more expensive than C-NSM and E-NSM, respectively. Wound/scar and postoperative acute pain evaluation favored the use of minimal access NSM over C-NSM. Quality of life in terms of chronic breast/chest pain, mobility, and range of motion of the upper extremity showed no significant differences. The preliminary oncologic results showed no differences among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: R-NSM or E-NSM is a safe alternative if compared with C-NSM in terms of perioperative morbidities, especially with better wound healing. The advantage of minimal access groups was higher wound-related satisfaction. Higher costs remain one of the major limiting factors in the widespread adoption of R-NSM.