Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 705–710 | Cite as

Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Implants After Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: A Report of 96 Cases

  • Fa-Cheng Li
  • Hong-Chuan Jiang
  • Jie Li
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has become increasingly popular as an effective treatment for patients with early-stage breast cancer requiring mastectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of IBR using permanent gel breast implants and Becker expandable breast implants after SSM.

Methods

A review of 96 patients undergoing IBR with Beck expandable or permanent gel breast implants after SSM from July 2002 to December 2006 was performed. Of the 96 patients, 30 had IBR after SSM with conservation of the nipple–areola complex (NAC). The mean patient age was 42 years (range, 29–57 years). Aesthetic outcomes were assessed according to the breast volume, shape, and symmetry with the opposite breasts after a mean follow-up period of 44 months.

Results

The aesthetic outcomes were graded as excellent for 29 patients, good for 47 patients, fair for 12 patients, and poor for 8 patients. The overall complication rate was 11.5% (11/96). The complications included prosthesis loss after skin flap necrosis subsequent to hematoma formation (n = 1), skin necrosis (n = 2), partial necrosis of preserved NAC (n = 1), capsular contracture (Baker 4, n = 2), wound infection not involving the prosthesis (n = 2), inversion of the injection port (n = 2), and seroma (n = 2).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that prosthetic breast reconstruction is a safe, reliable method with minimal complications and good to excellent aesthetic results for the majority of patients with early-stage breast cancer. For selected patients, NAC-sparing mastectomy can be performed without increasing the risk of local recurrences. Success depends on patient selection, proper incision for SSM, total coverage of the prostheses with muscles, and careful intra- and postoperative management.

Keywords

Breast implants Breast neoplasms Mammaplasty Mastectomy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

No financial support or benefits were received by the authors for this study. The implant was purchased by the patients and not donated by the manufacturers. All the patients in the authors’ hospital signed an agreement before the operation for the photos to be used for academic purposes. The authors express their gratitude to Professor Guan WX (Shanghai) and Professor Boo-Chai K (Singapore) for their help in the preparation of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Losken A, Carlson GW, Bostwick J III, Jones GE, Culbertson JH, Schoemann M (2002) Trends in unilateral breast reconstruction and management of the contralateral breast: the Emory experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:89–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morris J, Ingham R (1988) Choice of surgery for early breast cancer: psychosocial considerations. Soc Sci Med 27:1257–1262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singletary SE, Kroll SS (1996) Skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. Adv Surg 30:39–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simmons RM, Adamovich TL (2003) Skin-sparing mastectomy. Surg Clin North Am 83:885–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Medina-Franco H, Vasconez LO, Fix RJ, Heslin MJ, Beenken SW, Bland KI, Urist MM (2002) Factors associated with local recurrence after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg 235:814–819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eskenazi LB (2007) New options for immediate reconstruction: achieving optimal results with adjustable implants in a single stage. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:28–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salgarello M, Seccia A, Eugenio F (2004) Immediate breast reconstruction with anatomical permanent expandable implants after skin-sparing mastectomy: aesthetic and technical refinements. Ann Plast Surg 52:358–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hudson DA, Skoll PJ (2002) Complete one-stage, immediate breast reconstruction with prosthetic material in patients with large or ptotic breasts. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:487–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garbay JR, Rietjens M, Petit JY (1992) Esthetic results of breast reconstruction after amputation for cancer: 323 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod Paris 21:405–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowery JC, Wilkins EG, Kuzon WM, Davis JA (1996) Evaluations of aesthetic results in breast reconstruction: an analysis of reliability. Ann Plast Surg 36:601–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gordeiro PG (2008) Breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 359:1590–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker H (1984) Breast reconstruction using an inflatable breast implant with detachable reservoir. Plast Reconstr Surg 73:678–683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker H (1987) The permanent tissue expander. Clin Plast Surg 14:519–527PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lagergren J, Jurell G, Sandelin K, Rylander R, Wickman M (2005) Technical aspects of immediate breast reconstruction with implants: five year follow-up. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 39:147–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simmons RM, Brennan M, Christos P, King V, Osborne M (2002) Analysis of nipple/areolar involvement with mastectomy: can the areola be preserved? Ann Surg Oncol 9:165–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cense HA, Rutgers EJ, Lopes Cardozo M, Van Lanschot JJ (2001) Nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a viable option? Eur J Surg Oncol 27:521–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cunnick GH, Mokbel K (2004) Skin-sparing mastectomy. Am J Surg 188:78–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vyas JJ, Chinoy RF, Vaidya JS (1998) Prediction of nipple and areola involvement in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 24:15–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vlajcic Z, Zic R, Stanec S, Lambasa S, Petrovecki M, Stanec Z (2005) Nipple–areola complex preservation: predictive factors of neoplastic nipple–areola complex invasion. Ann Plast Surg 55:240–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryThe Chao Yang Hospital, Affiliated with Capital Medical UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations