Minimizing Nipple-Areolar Complex Complications in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) viability remains a significant concern following prepectoral tissue expander (TE) reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). This study assesses the impact of intraoperative TE fill on NAC necrosis and identifies strategies for mitigating this risk. METHODS: A chart review of all consecutive, prepectoral TEs placed immediately after NSM was performed between March 2017 and December 2022 at a single center. Demographics, mastectomy weight, intraoperative TE fill, and complications were extracted for all patients. Partial NAC necrosis was defined as any thickness of skin loss including part of the NAC, whereas total NAC necrosis was defined as full-thickness skin loss involving the entirety of the NAC. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Forty-six patients (83 breasts) with an average follow-up of 22 months were included. Women were on average 46 years old, nonsmoker (98%), and nondiabetic (100%) and had a body mass index of 23 kg/m2. All reconstructions were performed immediately following prophylactic mastectomies in 49% and therapeutic mastectomies in 51% of cases. Three breasts (4%) were radiated, and 15 patients (33%) received chemotherapy. Mean mastectomy weight was 346 ± 274 g, median intraoperative TE fill was 150 ± 225 mL, and median final TE fill was 350 ± 170 mL. Partial NAC necrosis occurred in 7 breasts (8%), and there were zero instances of complete NAC necrosis. On univariate analysis, partial NAC necrosis was not associated with any patient demographic or operative characteristics, including intraoperative TE fill. In multivariable models controlling for age, body mass index, mastectomy weight, prior breast surgery, and intraoperative TE fill, partial NAC necrosis was associated with lower body mass index (odds ratio, 0.53; confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98; P < 0.05) and higher mastectomy weight (odds ratio, 1.1; CI, 1.01-1.20; P < 0.05). Prior breast surgery approached significance, as those breasts had a 19.4 times higher odds of partial NAC necrosis (95% CI, 0.88-427.6; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Nipple-areolar complex necrosis following prepectoral TE reconstruction is a rare but serious complication. In this study of 83 breasts, 7 (8%) developed partial NAC necrosis, and all but one were able to be salvaged.

Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple/skin-sparing mastectomy followed by subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Technique, clinical outcomes, and aesthetic results from 88 preliminary procedures.

BACKGROUND: Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy overcomes the limitations of conventional endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy application. We introduce this technique and report the preliminary results of this study. METHODS: Patients who received single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy from May 2020 to May 2022 were enrolled from a single institution. Data were analyzed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this technique. Patient-reported and surgeon-reported cosmetic outcomes were collected. RESULTS: In total, 68 patients who underwent 88 single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy combined with subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction were enrolled in the current study. The overall complication rate was 10.3%. In total, 2.9% of patients suffered from major complications, and 5 (7.4%) experienced minor complications. Only 1 patient experienced partial nipple-areola complex necrosis. During a median follow-up time of 24 months, the locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis rate was both 1.6%. In the surgeon-reported cosmetic results, 92.1% of patients achieved good or excellent results. The mean SCAR-Q scores were 82.07 ± 8.86, and 85.3% evaluated their breasts as good or excellent. The mean overall cost was 5,670.4 ± 1,351.3 USD. The total mean operation time and maturity-stage mean operation time were 234.3 ± 80.4 and 172.55 ± 41.29 min, respectively. According to cumulative sum plot analysis, approximately 18 cases were needed for surgeons to decrease their operation time significantly and complication rate. CONCLUSION: Single axillary incision reverse-order endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe, less expensive, and efficient surgical technique with reliable intermediate-term oncologic safety. For suitable candidates, the technique with subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction can provide a good cosmetic outcome.

Direct-to-Implant versus Immediate Free Flap Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both direct-to-implant (DTI) and immediate free flap (FF) breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been described in the literature. However, there is a paucity of comparative studies between these two techniques. Furthermore, existing studies do not control for factors influencing ischemic complications. METHODS: A retrospective review of all NSMs performed at a single institution between January of 2014 and January of 2020 was performed. Immediate FF reconstructions were propensity score matched using probit regression to identify a comparable DTI cohort based on mastectomy weight, smoking, age, and history of radiotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day ischemic complications. RESULTS: One hundred eight NSMs performed in 79 patients were included. Average age was 45.7 ± 10.5 years and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 . There were 54 breasts in both the DTI group and the immediate FF group. Median mastectomy weight in the DTI group was 508 g (interquartile range, 264 g) as compared with 473 g (interquartile range, 303 g) in the FF group ( P = 0.792). There was no significant difference in the rate of partial nipple-areola complex necrosis in the DTI and FF groups (5.6% versus 3.7%, respectively; P = 0.500) or mastectomy flap necrosis (5.6% versus 11.1%; P = 0.297). Both the DTI and FF groups had a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 1.9% ( P = 0.752). CONCLUSION: Both DTI and immediate FF reconstruction can be safely offered to patients undergoing NSM while providing the benefit of a single reconstructive procedure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Surgical Delay of Nipple Areola Complex: A Powerful Technique to Extend the Indication of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical delay (SD) techniques, performed before the nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM), are procedures conceived to improve the blood supply to the nipple-areola complex (NAC) in order to overcome the ischemic risk. The aim of the study is reporting our experience with SD of the NAC in the setting of NSM, identify the rate of nipple and skin necrosis and other complications and to evaluate patient satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of female patients, who underwent NSM and breast reconstruction between the July 2014 and the July 2019, was performed at the Breast Unit of San Giovanni-Addolorata Hospital in Rome. Eighty-nine NSM after SD procedure were performed in 66 patients. In all cases immediate breast reconstruction was performed with a direct to implant technique and polyurethane implants in prepectoral plan were used in all reconstructions. RESULTS: We registered only 1 case of total NAC necrosis and 3 skin flap necrosis. Furthermore, patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction resulted excellent or good in 23 cases and good in 36 cases; the external plastic surgeon considered the breast reconstruction excellent or good in 63 cases. CONCLUSION: We support the thesis that SD techniques may expand indications for NAC sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction in women with known risk factors for local complications. Microabstract This is the largest single center series on surgical delay of nipple areola complex providing interesting data on follow-up and complication rates and we support the thesis that surgical delay techniques may expand indications for nipple-areola complex sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction in women with known risk factors for local complications.

Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) or skin flap ischemia necrosis post nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM)-analysis of clinicopathologic factors and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to identify clinicopathologic factors and/or preoperative MRI vascular patterns in the prediction of ischemia necrosis of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) or skin flap post nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 441 NSM procedures from January 2011 to September 2021 from the breast cancer database at our institution. The ischemia necrosis of NAC or skin flap was evaluated in correlation with clinicopathologic factors and types of skin incision. Patients who received NSM with preoperative MRI evaluation were further evaluated for the relationship between vascular pattern and the impact on ischemia necrosis of NAC or skin flap. RESULTS: A total of 441 cases with NSM were enrolled in the current study, and the mean age of the cases was 49.1 ± 9.8 years old. A total of 41 (9.3%) NSM procedures were found to have NAC ischemia/necrosis. Risk factors were evaluated of which old age, large mastectomy specimen weight (> 450 g), and peri-areola incision were identified as predictors of NAC necrosis. Two-hundred seventy NSM procedures also received preoperative MRI, and the blood supply pattern was 18% single-vessel type and 82% double-vessel pattern. There were no correlations between MRI blood supply patterns or types of skin flap incisions with ischemia necrosis of NAC. There were also no correlations between blood loss and the pattern or size of the blood vessel. CONCLUSION: Factors such as the type of skin incision, age, and size of mastectomy weight played an important role in determining ischemia necrosis of NAC; however, MRI vascular (single or dual vessel supply) pattern was not a significant predictive factor.

Long-Term Cancer Recurrence Rates following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A 10-Year Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increased use of nipple-sparing mastectomies, there are limited data examining long-term cancer recurrence rates in these patients. The objective of this study was to analyze breast cancer recurrence in patients who underwent therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomy with a median of 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: All patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed temporally to obtain a median of 10 years of follow-up. Patient demographic factors, mastectomy specimen pathologic findings, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Univariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for locoregional recurrence. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six therapeutic nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed on 120 patients. The most frequently observed tumor histology included invasive ductal carcinoma (48.4 percent) and ductal carcinoma in situ (38.1 percent). Mean tumor size was 1.62 cm. Multifocal or multicentric disease and lymphovascular invasion were present in 31.0 percent and 10.3 percent of nipple-sparing mastectomy specimens, respectively. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 84.9 percent of nipple-sparing mastectomies, and 17.8 percent were positive. The rate of positive frozen subareolar biopsy was 7.3 percent ( n = 82) and that of permanent subareolar pathology was 9.5 percent ( n = 126). The most frequently observed pathologic tumor stages were stage I (44.6 percent) and stage 0 (33.9 percent). The incidence of recurrent disease was 3.17 percent per mastectomy and 3.33 percent per patient. On univariate analysis, no demographic, operative, or tumor-specific variables were independent risk factors for locoregional recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Overall recurrence rates are low in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy at a median follow-up of 10-years. Close surveillance should remain a goal for patients and their providers to promptly identify potential recurrence. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Hematoma following gender-affirming mastectomy: A systematic review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Hematomas are reported to be the most common immediate complication in patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy, with rates substantially higher than those associated with other types of breast surgery. This study sought to examine the breadth of current literature and provide evidence-based explanations regarding the development of hematomas in chest masculinizing surgery and technical considerations for reducing their incidence. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify all articles related to gender-affirming mastectomy published through September 2021. Literature search yielded 2,661 articles for screening, of which 20 met inclusion criteria. Themes from the selected articles were compiled to generate consensus statements qualified by associated level of evidence (LOE). RESULTS: The rate of hematoma following gender-affirming mastectomy is reported in the literature ranging from 0% to 31.2%. The use of more limited, nipple-sparing incisions is associated with a higher hematoma rate than mastectomy with free nipple grafting (Level III). There is no conclusive evidence indicating any relationship between the use of masculinizing hormones and the incidence of hematoma (Level IV). Factors such as body mass index (Level III) and breast size (Level III) were not found to influence hematoma risk, though nicotine use (Level IV) was significantly associated with the incidence of hematoma. CONCLUSIONS: Hematoma is a known complication following gender-affirming mastectomy. The use of limited incision approaches has the strongest association with an increased risk of hematoma. There is no evidence indicating an association between hormone use (i.e., testosterone) and hematoma incidence. Future studies are needed to better define factors, interventions, and protocols to reduce the rate of hematoma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Oncologic Safety of Staged Prepectoral Implant Reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Mean 9-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy has recently gained popularity as an alternative to total or partial submuscular reconstruction. In the absence of long-term follow-up, concerns have been raised over the oncologic safety of using mastectomy flaps that preserve the entire thickness of the subcutaneous fat and its circulation. In this article, the authors present their average 9-year oncologic follow-up of patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and two-stage prepectoral implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix. METHODS: In this retrospective study, a group of previously reported (151 consecutive) breast cancer patients [246 breasts (160 therapeutic and 86 preventative)] who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy and staged prepectoral implant reconstruction between 2005 and 2015 were followed up for an average of 109 months (range, 14 to 192 months). Tumor-related data, oncologic markers, staging, neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy, and radiation therapy were evaluated to determine local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival rates. RESULTS: The local recurrence rate in 151 patients was 2.6 percent. Eleven patients (7.3 percent) died as a result of metastatic disease and three patients died as a result of unrelated causes. The average 109-month overall survival rate was 92.9 percent, and the disease-free survival rate was 87.8 percent. Over the same period, nine patients (6 percent) were alive with distant disease. CONCLUSION: The authors' 9-year two-stage prepectoral reconstruction study of nipple-sparing mastectomy shows that the procedure is oncologically safe, having comparable recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival rates as total mastectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Impact of Local Breast Cancer Recurrence on Reconstructed Breast in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Reconstruction.

The impact of locally recurrent breast cancer on reconstructed breasts remains largely unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the incidence of reconstruction loss due to local recurrence in patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction for breast cancer and to identify potential recurrence-associated risk factors for loss of index reconstruction. The records of 1,696 patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction between March 2003 and December 2016 at a single institution were reviewed. Among them, 128 patients with local breast cancer recurrence as the first event were analyzed. The primary outcome was loss of reconstruction due to local breast cancer recurrence. Reconstruction loss was classified as partial flap loss with breast distortion, complete flap loss, or implant loss during salvage treatment of local recurrence. Reconstruction loss occurred in 21 of the 128 patients (16%). Reconstruction loss rates were 20% for autologous and 9.5% for implant-based reconstruction (P = 0.204). Multivariate analysis showed that recurrent tumor size > 2.0 cm and multifocal recurrence were independent factors associated with an increased risk of reconstruction loss. Moreover, age ≥ 50 years at the time of recurrence diagnosis, recurrent tumor size > 2.0 cm, and multifocal recurrence were independently associated with complete flap/implant loss in the multivariate analysis. The incidence of reconstruction loss due to local breast cancer recurrence after nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction was low in this study. Age ≥ 50 years at recurrence diagnosis and the extent of local recurrence independently affected reconstruction loss. To detect recurrence early, careful follow-up through regular ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging at the reconstruction site is important.

Comparing Incision Choices in Immediate Microvascular Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Unique Considerations to Optimize Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Incision planning is a critical factor in nipple-sparing mastectomy outcomes. Evidence on optimal incision patterns in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate microvascular breast reconstruction is lacking in the literature. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate microvascular autologous reconstruction from 2007 to 2019. Outcomes-including major mastectomy flap necrosis, full nipple-areola complex necrosis, and any major ischemic complication of the skin envelope-were compared among incision types. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with major ischemic complication. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine reconstructions (163 patients) were identified, primarily using internal mammary recipient vessels (98.9 percent). Vertical incisions were used in 139 cases; inframammary, in 53; lateral radial, in 51; and inverted-T, in 35. Thirty-two cases (11.5 percent) had major mastectomy flap necrosis, 11 (3.9 percent) had full nipple-areola complex necrosis, and 38 (13.6 percent) had any major ischemic complication. Inframammary incisions had higher rates of major ischemic complication (25 percent) than vertical (5.8 percent; p < 0.001) and lateral radial (7.8 percent; p = 0.032) incisions. Inverted-T incisions also had higher rates of major ischemic complication (36.1 percent) than both vertical (p < 0.001) and lateral radial (p = 0.002) incisions. Inframammary incisions (OR, 4.382; p = 0.002), inverted-T incisions (OR, 3.952; p = 0.011), and mastectomy weight (OR, 1.003; p < 0.001) were independently associated with an increased risk of major ischemic complication. Inframammary incisions with major ischemic complication demonstrated significantly higher body mass index, mastectomy weight, and flap weight compared to those without. CONCLUSIONS: Inframammary and inverted-T incisions are associated with a higher risk of major ischemic skin envelope complications after nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate microvascular breast reconstruction. Radial incisions can be considered to optimize recipient vessel exposure without compromising perfusion. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Comparing Outcomes of Wise-Pattern, Two-Stage Breast Reduction-Reconstruction with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix.

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic results in breast reconstruction for ptotic/obese breasts may be improved when using Wise-pattern closures compared with nipple-sparing mastectomies. In two-stage reconstruction, acellular dermal matrix is commonly used to support the prosthesis. This study tests the efficacy of an alternate technique that uses deepithelialized excess breast skin in lieu of acellular dermal matrix. To better understand whether acellular dermal matrix is necessary, the authors compared postoperative outcomes from reduction-reconstructions that used matrix to those that did not. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent staged breast reconstruction following Wise-pattern closures between September of 2016 and October of 2019. Two cohorts were created based on whether acellular dermal matrix was used. Charts were reviewed for incidence of postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 164 breasts were reconstructed in 85 female patients. The acellular dermal matrix cohort consisted of 68 breasts, whereas the non-acellular dermal matrix cohort included 96 breasts. After the first stage, the incidence of one or more complications was similar between cohorts (acellular dermal matrix, 32.4 percent; nonmatrix, 35.4 percent; p = 0.684). Minor infection rates were significantly higher in reconstructions using acellular dermal matrix (16.2 percent versus 6.3 percent; p = 0.040). After the second stage, the complication incidence was also similar between cohorts (acellular dermal matrix, 16.2 percent; nonmatrix, 13.5 percent; p = 0.638). Final follow-up time was 445.2 days. CONCLUSIONS: Overall complication rates following both stages of reconstruction were similar with and without acellular dermal matrix. When acellular dermal matrix was used, minor infection rates were higher following expander placement. In patients desiring a reduction-reconstruction, the authors find the deepithelialized dermal flap provides ample prosthesis support, without the need for acellular dermal matrix. . CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Is Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Indicated after Previous Breast Surgery? A Series of 387 Institutional Cases.

BACKGROUND: Previous breast surgery does not represent an absolute contraindication for nipple-sparing mastectomy, although it may negatively interfere with surgical outcomes. The aim of the authors' study was to confirm the feasibility of nipple-sparing mastectomy after previous breast surgery, focusing on skin incisions and risk factors, complications, and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively identified 368 patients who underwent 387 nipple-sparing mastectomies and reconstruction after previous surgery (quadrantectomy, breast resection, augmentation and reduction mammaplasty, mastopexy) at the European Institute of Oncology from January of 2003 to November of 2017. Patterns of skin incisions (i.e., radial, hemiperiareolar, periareolar, vertical pattern, inframammary fold, Wise-pattern, and round-block) for primary surgery and for mastectomy, type of reconstruction, and radiotherapy have been recorded. The authors collected data regarding early and late complications and further operations (implant change, fat grafting) performed within 2 years to improve cosmetic outcomes. Oncologic follow-up has been reported for in-breast recurrences. RESULTS: Complete and partial nipple-areola complex necrosis occurred, respectively, in 2.8 percent and in 5.4 percent of cases. The authors recorded 5.4 percent failures resulting in implant removal. The analysis of risk factors for complications or for the need for further operations showed no significant association with skin incision for first surgery and mastectomy, use of the same skin incision, previous radiotherapy, or type of primary surgery. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 99.1 and 93.8 percent, respectively. No nipple recurrence was recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results confirm that nipple-sparing mastectomy can be a safe surgical procedure after previous breast surgery. Surgical planning should be tailored to each patient. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Postoperative pain assessment of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate prepectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a comparison with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Aims: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is a surgical procedure for patients with breast cancer without nipple-areolar complex (NAC) involvement. Robotic NSM (RNSM) with immediate breast reconstruction has been recently introduced; however, reports regarding RNSM are still lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the postoperative assessment with a focus on postoperative pain of RNSM with prepectoral immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction (IPBR) compared with conventional NSM (CNSM) in patients with breast cancer without NAC invasion. Methods: This retrospective study included 81 patients who underwent RNSM (n = 40) or CNSM (n = 41) with prepectoral IPBR using direct-to-implant or tissue expander between January 2018 and June 2020. The primary endpoint was to compare postoperative pain intensity based on a numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the postoperative recovery profile, including postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) and complications. Results: A statistical difference was observed in the resting NRS scores at 0-6 postoperative hours between the RNSM and CNSM groups (3.2 ± 1.5 versus 4.2 ± 1.6, respectively; Bonferroni corrected P = 0.005), however, no difference was shown at other time periods. Also, no between-group difference was found in the NRS scores for acting pain within 48 postoperative hours and the number of patients requiring additional analgesics. Conclusions: Despite a statistical difference in the resting NRS scores during the early postoperative phase, the absence of any significant difference in the requirement of additional analgesics between the groups suggested that RNSM does not significantly attenuate postoperative pain intensity.

Intraoperative central nipple biopsy in nipple-sparing mastectomy- A retrospective analysis of 211 patients.

Subcutaneous nipple sparing mastectomies (NSM) are an important tool in modern oncoplastic surgery. Especially when an immediate implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is desired, clean margins are of the utmost importance. Central nipple biopsies during surgery serve two main purposes. Most importantly, it is hypothesized that intraoperative pathological evaluation of this biopsy may increase clean margin resection rates. In addition, a general recurrence risk reduction may occur due to the elimination of glandular and ductal components within the nipple. This analysis is a single center, multi-surgeon, retrospective, head to head analysis. Starting in March 2015, intraoperative central nipple biopsy in NSMs with IBR was introduced at the Municipal Breast Cancer Centre Cologne, Holweide, Germany. This trial retrospectively evaluates global complication rates, clean margin status and local recurrence rates for cohort 1 (NSM/no nipple biopsy, n = 103) vs. cohort 2 (NSM with nipple biopsy, n = 108) Median follow-up was 15 months. All implant-based reconstruction procedures used an epipectoral implant pocket. Cohorts were comparable. Global complication rates slightly favored the nipple biopsy cohort with respects to implant loss rate. An involved central nipple biopsy was found in 4.6% (n = 5/108) of the performed NSM procedures leading to the immediate removal of the nipple areola complex. All positive retro-areolar biopsies correlated with a positive nipple biopsy. However, in n = 1 case we found DCIS discontinual proliferation with an involved nipple biopsy, without a correlating positive retro-areolar biopsy (ie, 1 false-negative case was prevented). For the 15 month follow-up, there was no case of local recurrence within nipple areola complex for both cohorts. With this retrospective head to head analysis of 211 patients, it was shown that the central nipple biopsy correlates well with the retro-areolar biopsy. There may be a reduction in false negative rates. The procedure is safe to use and should be offered to NSM patients.

Long-Term Oncologic Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the long-term oncologic safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) compared to skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) for primary breast cancer patients with immediate reconstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of stage 0-III primary breast cancer patients undergoing NSM (n = 190) or SSM (n = 729) from June 2006 to December 2012 were retrospectively collected. Nipple-tumor distance (NTD) was measured on pretreatment mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonography findings. NSM patients with NTD < 1 cm were excluded. Locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates were compared between groups. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) according to surgical procedure were assessed. RESULTS: The median (range) follow-up period for NSM and SSM was 71 (10-131) months and 79 (9-140) months, respectively. LRR developed in 11 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (5.8%) for NSM and 44 (42 in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma and 2 in patients with ductal carcinoma-in-situ) (6.0%) for SSM. Hormone receptor and HER2 status were not associated with LRR in either group. DFS and OS rates did not differ between groups (DFS: 89.3% for NSM, 89.3% for SSM, P = .87; OS: 98.4% for NSM, 94.5% for SSM, P = .43). CONCLUSION: NSM with immediate reconstruction was as safe as SSM for primary breast cancer with respect to prognosis and local control, regardless of the presence of invasive carcinoma or breast cancer subtype.

Oncologic Considerations for Safe Gender-Affirming Mastectomy: Preoperative Imaging, Pathologic Evaluation, Counseling, and Long-Term Screening.

SUMMARY: There remain significant gaps in the evidence-based care of patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy with regard to implications for breast cancer development and screening. The current clinical evidence does not demonstrate an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone therapy in transgender patients. Gender-affirmation mastectomy techniques vary significantly with regard to the amount of residual breast tissue left behind, which has unknown implications for the incidence of postoperative breast cancer and need for screening. Subcutaneous mastectomy should aim to remove all gross breast parenchyma, although this is limited in certain techniques. Tissue specimens should also be routinely sent for pathologic analysis. Several cases of incidental breast cancer after subcutaneous mastectomy have been described. There is little evidence on the need for or types of postoperative cancer screening. Chest awareness is an important concept for patients that have undergone subcutaneous mastectomies, as clinical examination remains the most common reported method of postmastectomy malignancy detection. In patients with greater known retained breast tissue, such as those with circumareolar or pedicled techniques, consideration may be given to alternative imaging modalities, although the efficacy and cost-utility of these techniques must still be proven. Preoperative patient counseling on the risk of breast cancer after gender-affirming mastectomy in addition to the unknown implications of residual breast tissue and long-term androgen exposure is critical. Patient awareness and education play an important role in shared decision-making, as further research is needed to define standards of medical and oncologic care in this population.

Pushing the Envelope: Skin-Only Mastopexy in Single-Stage Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in skin envelope reduction techniques and experienced nipple-sparing mastectomy flap procedures, the rate of nipple malposition and secondary revision in these patients remains high and eligible candidates are limited. In this article, the authors present a novel technique combining skin reduction nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery with single-stage skin-only mastopexy and direct-to-implant reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed at a single institution from 2015 to 2018. All patients were operated on using this technique consecutively, by a breast and plastic surgeon team (A.F. and A.M.). Surgical technique and outcomes were compared with the currently accepted literature. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (40 breasts) underwent this technique; all were single-stage direct-to-implant reconstructions. The average body mass index was 31 kg/m2. A Wise pattern was used in 35 breasts (87.5 percent) and prepectoral placement was used in 25 breasts (62.5 percent). Overall complications included seroma [n = 6 (15 percent)], vertical/T-junction dehiscence [n = 4 (10 percent)], skin necrosis [n = 4 (10 percent)], superficial or partial nipple necrosis [n = 4 (10 percent)], with no total nipple-areola complex lost and no reconstructive failures at 18.7 months' average follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, the authors share a novel reconstructive technique in which the skin envelope is reduced, the nipple-areola complex is repositioned, and a direct-to-implant reconstruction is performed in a single stage at the time of mastectomy. Consideration of pearls and pitfalls accompanies a review of the authors' experienced complication profile, and is discussed in the context of current literature. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.