[Effectiveness comparison of endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation].

Objective: To explore the surgical technique and preliminary safety and aesthetic results of endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation for patients. Methods: The clinical data of 25 patients who underwent endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation between April 2020 and January 2024 and met the selection criteria was retrospective analysed. The patients' age ranged from 33 to 73 years, with a mean of 50.4 years, and the body mass index ranged from 16.8 to 26.6 kg/m 2, with a mean of 21.5 kg/m 2. They were all bilaterally injected with Amazingel, and the time between initial injections and surgery ranged from 17 to 26 years, with a mean of 21.4 years. Early safety was evaluated by the incidence of early postoperative complications, and early aesthetic results were evaluated using Harris scores (including breast shape satisfaction, sensation satisfaction, and elasticity satisfaction) at 3 months after operation. Results: There were 9 cases underwent Amazingel removal (group A) and 16 cases underwent Amazingel removal with immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation (group B). Intraoperative removal of Amazingel ranged from 808 to 1 285 mL, with a mean of 1 050.7 mL; the mass of the capsule removed ranged from 36 to 169 g, with a mean of 103.6 g; and a gross anatomical prosthesis was used with a median size of 345 mL (range, 315-355 mL). The operation time ranged from 95 to 395 minutes, with a mean of 194.2 minutes; and the cost of the procedure ranged from 8000to 91 000 yuan, with a mean of 33 000 yuan. Patients had a median follow-up time of 22.7 months (range, 3.0-48.1 months). There was 1 case of intraoperative skin burn due to the operation of the electric scalpel, which healed naturally after operation without flap necrosis. There was no adverse conditions such as prosthesis outline showing, ripple sign, and capsular contracture during follow-up; a small amount of Amazingel residue was found in 2 patients at 1 year after operation. The Harris score at 3 months after operation was used to evaluate the early aesthetic results, and the breast shape, elasticity, and sensation satisfaction of group A were lower than group B, but the differences between the two groups were not significant ( P>0.05). Conclusion: Endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation is safe in the early stage with good aesthetic results, and it is also recommended that patients who had the indications for combined immediate breast augmentation after removal to rebuild the breast appearance.

Reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: an improvement of conventional minimal access breast surgery.

Background: Our center proposes a new technique that effectively provides space to broaden the surgical field of view and overcomes the limitations of endoscopy-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) by changing the dissection sequence and combining it with air inflation. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the new technique designated "reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) with subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR)" and the conventional E-NSM (C-E-NSM) with SBR. Method: All patients undergoing E-NSM with SBR at our breast center between April 2017 and December 2022 were included in this study. The cohort was divided into the C-E-NSM group and the R-E-NSM group. The operation time, anesthesia time, medical cost, complications, cosmetic outcomes, and oncological safety were compared. Results: Twenty-six and seventy-nine consecutive patients were included in the C-E-NSM and R-E-NSM groups, with average ages of 36.9 ± 7.0 years and 39.7 ± 8.4 years (P=0.128). Patients in the R-E-NSM group had significantly shorter operation time (204.6 ± 59.2 vs. 318.9 ± 75.5 minutes, p<0.001) and anesthesia time (279.4 ± 83.9 vs. 408.9 ± 87.4 minutes, p<0.001) and decreased medical costs [5063.4 (4439.6-6532.3) vs. 6404.2 (5152.5-7981.5), USD, p=0.001] and increase SCAR-Q scores (77.2 ± 17.1 vs. 68.8 ± 8.7, P=0.002) compared to the C-E-NSM group. Although trends increased in both the excellent rate of Ueda scores (53.8% vs. 42.3%, P = 0.144), excellent rate of Harris scores (44.0% vs. 63.1%, P=0.102), and decreased surgical complications (7.6% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.135) were observed in the R-E-NSM group, the differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion: R-E-NSM improves cosmetic outcomes and efficiency of C-E-NSM, reduces medical costs, and has a trend of lower surgical complications while maintaining the safety of oncology. It is a safe and feasible option for oncological procedures that deserves to be promoted and widely adopted in practice.

Clinical Outcomes of Transaxillary Reverse-Sequence Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study of Initial 68 Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Minimal access breast surgery improves cosmetic outcomes over conventional breast surgery but still faces barriers in becoming standard procedure for breast reconstruction. This report introduces a novel technique of transaxillary reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) followed by direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction (DTI-PBR) and describes its clinical outcomes. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled patients who underwent R-E-NSM and DTI-PBR from March 2021 to December 2021 at a single institution. Perioperative data, surgical complications, oncologic outcomes, and patient- and surgeon-reported cosmetic results were noted. RESULTS: The 60 patients in this study who underwent 68 R-E-NSM and DTI-PBR had a mean age was 40.4 ± 10.3 years. The average durations of uni- and bilateral operations were 156.5 ± 48.3 min and 191.3 ± 36.1 min, respectively. The overall surgical complication rate was 13.3%, including 10.0% of patients with minor complications and 3.3% of patients with major complications. The study had one case (1.7%) of implant loss and one case (1.7%) of skin flap necrosis treated by reoperation. During the median follow-up period of 24 months, one patient (1.7%) who discontinued chemotherapy for myelosuppression experienced liver metastases 5 months postoperatively, and one patient experienced new-onset contralateral ductal carcinoma in situ 24 months postoperatively. The preoperative and 18-month postoperative Breast-Q scores for satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and chest well-being did not differ significantly, and the Scar-Q was 81.2 ± 14.5 points. The good-to-excellent rate in surgeon-reported cosmetic results reached 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Transaxillary R-E-NSM followed by DTI-PBR is a safe and efficient technique with high cosmetic outcomes and reliable medium-term oncologic results.

A novel technique of reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: medium-term oncological safety outcomes and feasibility of 24-h discharge for breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Due to the short operation time and no need for special instruments, reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction (DIBR) has been rapidly becoming popular in the last three years. However, there has yet to be an evaluation of its oncologic safety or the feasibility of discharging patients within 24 h. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-centre retrospective cohort study, individuals diagnosed with stage 0-III breast cancer between May 2020 and April 2022 who underwent traditional open mastectomy or R-E-NSM with DIBR were included. Follow-up started on the date of surgery and ended in December 2023. Data, including demographics, tumour characteristics, medium-term oncological outcomes, and postoperative complications, were collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: This study included 1679 patients [median (IQR) age, 50 [44-57) years]. Of these, 344 patients underwent R-E-NSM with DIBR (RE-R group), and 1335 patients underwent traditional open mastectomy (TOM group). The median [IQR] follow-up time was 30 [24-36] months [29 (23-33) months in the RE-R group and 30([24-36) months in the TOM group]. Regarding before or after PSM, the P value of local recurrence-free survival (LRFS, 0.910 and 0.450), regional recurrence-free survival (RRFS, 0.780 and 0.620), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, 0.061 and 0.130), overall survival (OS, 0.260 and 0.620), disease-free survival (DFS, 0.120 and 0.330) were not significantly different between the RE-R group and the TOM group. The 3y-LRFS and 3y-DFS rates were 99.0% and 97.1% for the RE-R group and 99.5% and 95.3% for the TOM group, respectively. The rates of any complications and major complications were not significantly different between the RE-R patients who were discharged within 24 h and the RE-R patients who were not discharged within 24 h ( P =0.290, P =0.665, respectively) or the TOM patients who were discharged within 24 h ( P =0.133, P =0.136, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: R-E-NSM with DIBR is an innovative oncologic surgical procedure that not only improves cosmetic outcomes but also ensures reliable oncologic safety and fewer complications, enabling patients to be safely discharged within 24 h. A long-term prospective multicenter assessment will be supporting.