Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nipple reconstruction: risk factors and complications after 189 procedures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A multitude of different approaches have been proposed for achieving optimal aesthetic results after nipple reconstruction. In contrast, however, only a few studies focus on the morbidity associated with this procedure, particularly after implant-based breast reconstruction.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, all patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with subsequent nipple reconstruction between 2000 and 2010 at Stanford University Medical Center were identified. The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of the following parameters on the occurrence of postoperative complications: age, final implant volume, time interval from placement of final implant to nipple reconstruction, and history of radiotherapy.

Results

A total of 139 patients with a mean age of 47.5 years (range, 29 to 75 years) underwent 189 nipple reconstructions. The overall complication rate was 13.2 % (N = 25 nipple reconstructions). No association was observed between age (p = 0.43) or implant volume (p = 0.47) and the occurrence of complications. A trend towards higher complication rates in patients in whom the time interval between final implant placement and nipple reconstruction was greater than 8.5 months was seen (p = 0.07). Radiotherapy was the only parameter that was associated with a statistically significant increase in postoperative complication rate (51.7 vs. 6.25 %, p < 0.00001).

Conclusions

While nipple reconstruction is a safe procedure after implant-based breast reconstruction in patients without a history of radiotherapy, the presence of an irradiated field converts it to a high-risk one with a significant increase in postoperative complication rate. Patients with a history of radiotherapy should be informed about their risk profile and as a result may choose autologous reconstruction instead.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, prognostic/risk study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shaikh-Naidu N, Preminger BA, Rogers K et al (2004) Determinants of aesthetic satisfaction following TRAM and implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 52:465–470, discussion 470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Losken A, Mackay GJ, Bostwick J 3rd (2001) Nipple reconstruction using the C-V flap technique: a long-term evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:361–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Few JW, Marcus JR, Casas LA et al (1999) Long-term predictable nipple projection following reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1321–1324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shestak KC, Nguyen TD (2007) The double opposing periareola flap: a novel concept for nipple-areola reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:473–480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shestak KC, Gabriel A, Landecker A et al (2002) Assessment of long-term nipple projection: a comparison of three techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:780–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosing JH, Momeni A, Kamperman K et al (2009) Effectiveness of the Asteame Nipple Guard™ in maintaining projection following nipple reconstruction: a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 63(10):1592–1596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhong T, Antony A, Cordeiro P (2009) Surgical outcomes and nipple projection using the modified skate flap for nipple-areolar reconstruction in a series of 422 implant reconstructions. Ann Plast Surg 62:591–595

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eskenazi L (1993) A one-stage nipple reconstruction with the “modified star” flap and immediate tattoo: a review of 100 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:671–680

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Eo S, Kim SS, Da Lio AL (2007) Nipple reconstruction with C-v flap using dermofat graft. Ann Plast Surg 58:137–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kroll SS, Reece GP, Miller MJ et al (1997) Comparison of nipple projection with the modified double-opposing tab and star flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:1602–1605

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Momeni A, Becker A, Torio-Padron N et al (2008) Nipple reconstruction: evidence-based trials in the plastic surgical literature. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32:18–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Draper LB, Bui DT, Chiu ES et al (2005) Nipple-areola reconstruction following chest-wall irradiation for breast cancer: is it safe? Ann Plast Surg 55:12–15, discussion 15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J et al (2010) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Pusic AL et al (2012) The influence of sociodemographic factors and hospital characteristics on the method of breast reconstruction, including microsurgery: a U.S. Population-based study. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:1071–1079

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lowe HJ, Ferris TA, Hernandez PM et al (2009) STRIDE—an integrated standards-based translational research informatics platform. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2009:391–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Katz SJ, Hawley ST (2007) From policy to patients and back: surgical treatment decision making for patients with breast cancer. Health Aff (Millwood) 26:761–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T et al (2009) Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 27:4082–4088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kotwall C, Ranson M, Stiles A et al (2007) Relationship between initial margin status for invasive breast cancer and residual carcinoma after re-excision. Am Surg 73:337–343

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA et al (2008) Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1297–1303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Menes TS, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss I et al (2005) The consequence of multiple re-excisions to obtain clear lumpectomy margins in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 12:881–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK et al (2009) Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA 302:1551–1556

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Spear SL, Onyewu C (2000) Staged breast reconstruction with saline-filled implants in the irradiated breast: recent trends and therapeutic implications. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:930–942

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin KY, Blechman AB, Brenin DR (2012) Implant-based, two-stage breast reconstruction in the setting of radiation injury: an outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:817–823

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Delanian S, Lefaix JL (2004) The radiation-induced fibroatrophic process: therapeutic perspective via the antioxidant pathway. Radiother Oncol 73:119–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jabor MA, Shayani P, Collins DR Jr et al (2002) Nipple-areola reconstruction: satisfaction and clinical determinants. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:457–463, discussion 464–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Stanford Translational Research Integrated Database Environment is a research and development project at Stanford University to create a standards-based informatics platform supporting clinical and translational research. The project described was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant UL1 RR025744. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Conflict of Interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, 770 Welch Road, Suite 400, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-5715, USA

    Arash Momeni, Mina Ghaly, Deepak Gupta, Yvonne L. Karanas, David M. Kahn, Geoffrey C. Gurtner & Gordon K. Lee

Authors
  1. Arash Momeni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mina Ghaly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deepak Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yvonne L. Karanas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David M. Kahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Geoffrey C. Gurtner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gordon K. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arash Momeni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Momeni, A., Ghaly, M., Gupta, D. et al. Nipple reconstruction: risk factors and complications after 189 procedures. Eur J Plast Surg 36, 633–638 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-013-0841-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-013-0841-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation