Strattice reconstructive tissue matrix to maintain nipple projection—what do patients think?

  • Arvind Mohan
  • Honey Ghaffari
  • Mark Ho-Asjoe
Original Paper



One of the main challenges in nipple reconstruction is achieving and maintaining nipple projection. We describe a novel use of banked Strattice to provide an internal scaffold and improve long-term projection following nipple reconstruction. We assess patient and partner satisfaction with the technique compared with routine reconstruction.


All patients who underwent nipple reconstruction in our unit by a single surgeon between 1/1/11 and 29/4/16 were identified retrospectively and asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire relating specifically to their reconstruction. Those who underwent reconstruction with Strattice were compared with those that had local flaps alone.


Sixty-four patients and 73 nipples were reconstructed during the study period. Eighteen nipples were reconstructed on 14 patients using Strattice. Fifty-seven patients responded to the questionnaire (90.5%). One patient developed an infection requiring removal of the banked matrix. Patients had a statistically significant increased degree of satisfaction when Strattice was used to augment their reconstruction (Mean ± SEM score 8.06 ± 0.20 versus 5.83 ± 0.16 for no Strattice; p < 0.0001). This was also the case when undressed (7.59 ± 0.15 vs 5.69 ± 0.16) but did not reach statistical significance when the patient was dressed (6.85 ± 0.19 vs 6.44 ± 0.11; p = 0.08). Patients’ partners also rated the reconstruction more highly when Strattice was used (7.71 ± 0.14 versus 6.33 ± 0.19 for no Strattice).


Our study demonstrates that the use of Strattice in nipple reconstruction can lead to significantly increased rates of satisfaction among women undergoing the final stage of breast reconstruction.

Level of Evidence: III Therapeutic study.


Nipple reconstruction Nipple projection Patient satisfaction Strattice Dermal matrix 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Arvind Mohan, Honey Ghaffari, and Mark Ho-Asjoe declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Formal consent

For this type of study formal consent was not required. However, informed consent was obtained for photographic publication and prior to operative procedures.

Ethical approval

No ethical approval was required in the production of this study.


  1. 1.
    Farhadi J, Maksvytyte GK, Schaefer DJ, Pierer G, Scheufler O (2006) Reconstruction of the nipple-areola complex: an update. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:40–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shestak KC, Nguyen TD (2007) The double opposing periareola flap: a novel concept for nipple-areola reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:473–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shestak KC, Gabriel A, Landecker A, Peters S, Shestak A, Kim J (2002) Assessment of long-term nipple projection: a comparison of three techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:780–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Losken A, Mackay GJ, Bostwick J 3rd (2001) Nipple reconstruction using the C-V flap technique: a long-term evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:361–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Few JW, Marcus JR, Casas LA, Aitken ME, Redding J (1999) Long-term predictable nipple projection following reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1321–1324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwager RG, Smith JW, Gray GF et al (1974) Inversion of the human female nipple, with a simple method of treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg 54:564–569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chia HL, Wong M, Tan BK (2014) Nipple reconstruction with rolled dermal graft support. Arch Plast Surg 41:158–162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanabe HY, Tai Y, Kiyokawa K, Yamauchi T (1997) Nipple-areola reconstruction with a dermal-fat flap and rolled auricular cartilage. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:431–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klatsky SA, Manson PN (1981) Toe pulp free grafts in nipple reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 68:245–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guerra AB, Khoobehi K, Metzinger SE, Allen RJ (2003) New technique for nipple areola reconstruction: arrow flap and rib cartilage graft for long-lasting nipple projection. Ann Plast Surg 50:31–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong RK, Wichterman L, Parson SD (2008) Skin sparing nipple reconstruction with polytetrafluoroethylene implant. Ann Plast Surg 61:256–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yanaga H (2003) Nipple-areola reconstruction with a dermal-fat flap: technical improvement from rolled auricular cartilage to artificial bone. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:1863–1869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evans KK, Rasko Y, Lenert J, Olding M (2005) The use of calcium hydroxylapatite for nipple projection after failed nipple-areolar reconstruction: early results. Ann Plast Surg 55:25–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garramone CE, Lam B (2007) Use of AlloDerm in primary nipple reconstruction to improve long-term nipple projection. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1663–1668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holton LH, Haerian H, Silverman RP, Chung T, Elisseeff JH, Goldberg NH, Slezak S (2005) Improving long-term projection in nipple reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix: an animal model. Ann Plast Surg 55:304–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen WF, Barounis D, Kalimuthu R (2010) A novel cost-saving approach to the use of acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in postmastectomy breast and nipple reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:479–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guys & St Thomas’ HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations