Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 140, Issue 3, pp 545–555 | Cite as

Clinical outcomes following nipple–areola-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: a 12-year experience with an analysis of patient and breast-related factors for complications

  • Alexandre Mendonça Munhoz
  • Cláudia Maria Aldrighi
  • Eduardo Montag
  • Eduardo Gustavo Arruda
  • José Mendes Aldrighi
  • Rolf Gemperli
  • Jose Roberto Filassi
  • Marcus Castro Ferreira


Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly offered to women for therapeutic and prophylactic indications. Although, clinical series have been described, there are few studies describing risk factors for complications. The objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence of complications in a series of consecutive patients submitted to NSM and differences between clinical risk factors, breast volume, and different incision types. In a cohort-designed study, 158 reconstructed patients (invasive/in situ cancer and high risk for cancer) were stratified into groups based on different types of incision used (hemi-periareolar, double-circle periareolar, and Wise-pattern). They were matched for age, body mass index, associated clinical diseases, smoking, and weight of specimen. Also included were patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and postoperative radiotherapy. Mean follow-up was 65.6 months. In 106 (67 %) patients, NSM was performed for breast cancer treatment and in 52 (32.9 %) for cancer prophylaxis. Thirty-nine (24.6 %) patients were submitted to hemi-periareolar technique, 67 (42.4 %) to double-circle periareolar incision, and 52 (33 %) to Wise-pattern incision. The reconstruction was performed with tissue expander and implant–expander. Local recurrence rate was 3.7 % and the incidence of distant metastases was 1.8 %. Obese patients and higher weight of specimen had a higher risk for complications. After adjusting risk factors (BMI, weight of specimen), the complications were higher for patients submitted to hemi-periareolar and Wise-pattern incisions. This follow-up survey demonstrates that NSM facilitates optimal breast reconstruction by preserving the majority of the breast skin. Selected patients can have safe outcomes and therefore this may be a feasible option for breast cancer management. Success depends on coordinated planning with the oncologic surgeon and careful preoperative and intraoperative management. Surgical risk factors include incision type, obesity, and weight of breast specimen.


Breast reconstruction Skin-sparing mastectomy Nipple-sparing mastectomy Outcome Complications Silicone breast implants 



Skin-sparing mastectomy


Nipple-sparing mastectomy


Nipple–areola complex


Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap


Transversus rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap


Body mass index



We would like to thank Angela Paes for statistical analysis, Teresa Curi for English revision and Rodrigo Tonan for the illustration.

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Cense HA, Rutgers EJTh, Lopes Cardozo M (2001) Nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a viable option? Eur J Surg Oncol 27:521–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stanec Z, Zic R, Stanec S, Budi S (2003) Skin-sparing mastectomy with nipple-areola conservation. Plastic Reconstr Surg 111:496–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crowe JP Jr, Kim JA, Yetman R (2004) Nipple-sparing mastectomy: technique and results of 54 procedures. Arch Surg 139:148–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia-Etienne CA, Borgen PI (2006) Update on the indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Support Oncol 4:225–230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caruso F, Ferrara M, Castiglione G (2006) Nipple sparing subcutaneous mastectomy: sixty-six months follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:937–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nahabedian MY, Tsangaris TN (2006) Breast reconstruction following subcutaneous mastectomy for cancer: a critical appraisal of the nipple-areola complex. Plast Reconstr Surg 117(4):1083–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC (2006) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem. J Am Coll Surg 203(5):704–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Regolo L, Ballardini B, Gallarotti E (2008) Nipple sparing mastectomy: an innovative skin incision for an alternative approach. Breast 17:8–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stolier AJ, Sullivan SK, Dellacroce FJ (2008) Technical considerations in nipple-sparing mastectomy: 82 consecutive cases without necrosis. Ann Surg Oncol 15(5):1341–1347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Munhoz AM, Aldrighi C, Montag E (2009) Optimizing the nipple-areola sparing mastectomy with double concentric periareolar incision and biodimensional expander-implant reconstruction: aesthetic and technical refinements. Breast 18(6):356–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nava MB, Cortinovis U, Ottolenghi J, Riggio E, Pennati A, Catanuto G, Greco M, Rovere GQ (2006) Skin-reducing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(3):603–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Alcantara Filho D, Capko JM, Barry M, Morrow A Pusic, Sacchini VS (2011) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the memorial sloan-kettering cancer center experience. Ann Surg Oncol 18(11):3117–3122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tokin C, Weiss A, Wang-Rodriguez J, Blair SL (2012) Oncologic safety of skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy: a discussion and review of the literature. Int J Surg Oncol 921:821–827Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, Kundt G, Reimer T (2009) The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg 249(3):461–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boneti C, Yuen J, Santiago C (2011) Oncologic safety of nipple skin-sparing or total skin-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 212:686–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen JA, Orringer JS, Giuliano AE (2011) Nipple-sparing mastectomy in 99 patients with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1665–1670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Komorowski AL, Zanini V, Regolo L, Carolei A, Wysocki WM, Costa A (2006) Necrotic complications after nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy. World J Surg 30:1410–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peled AW, Foster RD, Stover AC, Itakura K, Ewing CA, Alvarado M, Hwang ES, Esserman LJ (2012) Outcomes after total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction in 657 breasts. Ann Surg Oncol 19(11):3402–3409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Toth BA, Lappert P (1991) Modified skin incisions for mastectomy: the need for plastic surgical input in preoperative planning. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:1048–1053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kroll SS, Ames F, Singletary SE, Schusterman MA (1991) The oncologic risks of skin preservation at mastectomy when combined with immediate reconstruction of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 172:17–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carlson GW (1996) Skin sparing mastectomy: anatomic and technical considerations. Am Surg 62:151–158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singletary SE (1996) Skin sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Institute experience. Ann Surg Oncol 3:411–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carlson GW, Bostwick J 3rd, Styblo TM (1997) Skin-sparing mastectomy. Oncologic and reconstructive considerations. Ann Surg 225:570–578Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slavin SA, Schnitt SJ, Duda RB (1998) Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction: oncologic risks and aesthetic results in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simmons RM, Adamovich TL (2003) Skin-sparing mastectomy. Surg Clin North Am 83:885–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Foster RD, Esserman LJ, Anthony JP (2002) Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study for the treatment of advanced stages of breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 9:462–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Munhoz AM, Arruda E, Montag E (2007) Immediate skin-sparing mastectomy reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. Technical aspects and outcome. Breast J 13:470–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Munhoz AM, Aldrighi C, Montag E (2007) Periareolar skin-sparing mastectomy and latissimus dorsi flap with biodimensional expander implant reconstruction: surgical planning, outcome, and complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1637–1645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stolier AJ, Levine EA (2013) Reducing the risk of nipple necrosis: technical observations in 340 nipple-sparing mastectomies. Breast J 19(2):173–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Proano E, Perbeck LG (1996) Influence of the site of skin incision on the circulation in the nipple-areola complex after subcutaneous mastectomy in breast cancer. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 30(3):195–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spear SL, Spittler CJ (2001) Breast reconstruction with implants and expanders. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:177–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gui GP, Tan SM, Faliakou EC (2003) Immediate breast reconstruction using biodimensional anatomical permanent expander implants: a prospective analysis of outcome and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:125–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Salgarello M, Seccia A, Farallo E (2004) Immediate breast reconstruction with anatomical permanent expandable implants after skin sparing mastectomy: aesthetic and technical refinements. Ann Plast Surg 52:358–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maxwell GP (2003) Immediate breast reconstruction using biodimensional anatomical permanent expander implants: a prospective analysis of outcome and patient satisfaction (discussion). Plast Reconstr Surg 111:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mahdi S, Jones T, Nicklin S, McGeorge DD (1998) Expandable anatomical implants in breast reconstructions: a prospective study. Br J Plast Surg 51:425–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mandrekas AD, Zambacos GJ, Katsantoni PN (1995) Immediate and delayed breast reconstruction with permanent tissue expanders. Br J Plast Surg 48:572–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Toth BA, Daane SP (2003) Purse-string mastectomy with immediate prosthetic reconstruction: an improved skin-sparing technique for small breasts. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:2333–2340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hammond DC, Capraro PA, Ozolins EB, Arnold JF (2002) Use of a skin-sparing reduction pattern to create a combination skin-muscle flap pocket in immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:206–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Davies K, Allan L, Roblin P, Ross D, Farhadi J (2011) Factors affecting post-operative complications following skin sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. The Breast 20(1):21–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Spear SL, Hannan CM, Willey SC, Cocilovo C (2009) Nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1665–1673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Kim HM (2002) Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2265–2271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gamboa-Bobadilla GM, Killingsworth C (2007) Large-volume reduction mammaplasty: the effect of body mass index on postoperative complications. Ann Plast Surg 58:246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wooderman LA, Hage JJ, Hofland MM, Rutgers MJ (2007) A prospective assessment of surgical risk factors in 400 cases of skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with implants to establish selection criteria. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bailey MH, Smith JW, Casas L (1989) Immediate breast reconstruction: reducing the risks. Plast Reconstr Surg 83:845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandre Mendonça Munhoz
    • 1
  • Cláudia Maria Aldrighi
    • 1
  • Eduardo Montag
    • 3
  • Eduardo Gustavo Arruda
    • 3
  • José Mendes Aldrighi
    • 4
  • Rolf Gemperli
    • 5
  • Jose Roberto Filassi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marcus Castro Ferreira
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Plastic SurgeryHospital Sírio-LibanêsSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Breast Surgery Group, Cancer Institute of São PauloUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Cancer Institute of São PauloUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Public Health Sciences DepartmentUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  5. 5.Plastic Surgery DivisionUniversity of São Paulo School of MedicineSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations