Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transaxillary Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Not: A Comparative Study with Analysis of Surgical Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes

  • Original Articles
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In most cases, transaxillary single-port endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (E-NSM-IIBR) is conducted in patients with early-stage breast cancer, ensuring surgical safety while achieving improved breast aesthetics. However, whether E-NSM-IIBR is appropriate in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to report the surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of breast cancer patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with NAC in comparison to those who did not receive NAC.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR with or without NAC at a single center between January 2021 and July 2022. Patient demographics, postoperative complications, and PROs evaluated using the BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire were compared between the two groups. Factors associated with PROs at 9 months after surgery were assessed with linear regression analysis.

Results

A total of 92 patients who underwent E-NSM-IIBR were included in the study, with 27 patients receiving NAC and 65 patients not receiving NAC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. The BREAST-Q version 2.0 questionnaire was completed by 24 out of 27 patients (88.9%) in the NAC group and 59 out of 65 patients (90.8%) in the non-NAC group at 9 months after surgery. The patient-reported outcomes in various domains of the BREAST-Q did not show a significant difference between the two cohorts. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that in the both groups age (β = − 0.985, 95% CI − 1.598 to − 0.371, p = 0.003 in the NAC group; β = − 0.510, − 1.011 to − 0.009, p = 0.046 in the non-NAC group) and rippling (β = − 21.862, − 36.768 to − 6.955, p = 0.006 in the NAC group; β = − 7.787, − 15.151 to − 0.423, p = 0.039 in the non-NAC group) significantly impacted the patients’ satisfaction with breasts, and PMRT was negatively associated with patients’ physical well-being of chest (β = − 13.813, − 26.962 to − 0.664, p = 0.040 in the NAC group; β = − 18.574, − 30.661 to − 6.487, p = 0.003 in the non-NAC group). Our findings revealed that patients with larger implant volumes had higher scores in psychosocial well-being (β = 0.082, 0.001 to 0.162, p = 0.047), whereas implant displacement (β = − 14.937, − 28.175 to − 1.700, p=0.028) had a negative impact on patients' psychological well-being in the non-NAC group. However, our results did not demonstrate any significant influencing factors on patients' psychosocial well-being within the NAC group.

Conclusion

Our preliminary experiences confirm that E-NSM-IIBR is a safe option for selected patients even after NAC, with favorable patient-reported outcomes comparable with those in the primary surgery setting. The postoperative long-term outcomes of patients who undergo radiation therapy after NAC merit further investigation in the future.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

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. Mougalian SS, Soulos PR, Killelea BK et al (2015) Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage I to III breast cancer in the United States. Cancer 121:2544–2552

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Clough KB, Acosta-Marin V, Nos C et al (2015) Rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer surgery: a french national survey. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3504–3511

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pollom EL, Qian Y, Chin AL et al (2018) Rising rates of bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Cancer 143:3262–3272

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gusic LH, Walsh K, Flippo-Morton T et al (2018) Rationale for mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am Surg 84:126–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lai HW, Chen ST, Tai CM et al (2020) Robotic- versus endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction in the management of breast cancer: a case-control comparison study with analysis of clinical outcomes, learning curve, patient-reported aesthetic results, and medical cost. Ann Surg Oncol 27:2255–2268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lai HW, Chen ST, Mok CW et al (2021) Single-port three-dimensional (3D) videoscope-assisted endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy in the management of breast cancer: technique, clinical outcomes, medical cost, learning curve, and patient-reported aesthetic results from 80 preliminary procedures. Ann Surg Oncol 28:7331–7344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang S, Xie Y, Liang F et al (2022) Video-assisted transaxillary nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: a novel and promising method. Aesthetic Plast Surg 46:91–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee HY, Chang YW, Yu DY et al (2021) Comparison of single incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer based on initial experience. J Breast Cancer 24:196–205

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang S, Xie Y, Liang F et al (2021) Endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy with direct-to-implant subpectoral breast reconstruction in the management of breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 9:e3978

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Galimberti V, Vicini E, Corso G et al (2017) Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications. Breast 34(Suppl 1):S82–S84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chu CK, Davis MJ, Abu-Ghname A et al (2019) Implant reconstruction in nipple sparing mastectomy. Semin Plast Surg 33:247–257

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sakamoto N, Fukuma E, Higa K et al (2009) Early results of an endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 16:3406–3413

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lai HW, Chen ST, Chen DR et al (2016) Current trends in and indications for endoscopy-assisted breast surgery for breast cancer: results from a six-year study conducted by the Taiwan endoscopic breast surgery cooperative group. PLoS ONE 11:e0150310

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Du J, Liang Q, Qi X et al (2017) Endoscopic nipple sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based reconstruction versus breast conserving surgery: a long-term study. Sci Rep 7:45636

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Tukenmez M, Ozden BC, Agcaoglu O et al (2014) Videoendoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 24:77–82

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Friedrich M, Kramer S, Friedrich D et al (2021) Difficulties of breast reconstruction-problems that no one likes to face. Anticancer Res 41:5365–5375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A et al (2003) The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 21:4165–4174

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mehrara BJ, Santoro TD, Arcilla E et al (2006) Complications after microvascular breast reconstruction: experience with 1195 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1100–1109

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dolen UC, Schmidt AC, Um GT et al (2016) Impact of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy on immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 23:2357–2366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Allue Cabanuz M, Arribas Del Amo MD, Gil Romea I et al (2019) Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A safe option? Cir Esp (Engl Ed) 97:575–581

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abt NB, Flores JM, Baltodano PA et al (2014) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and short-term morbidity in patients undergoing mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg 149:1068–1076

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu YY, Weeks CM, In H et al (2011) Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast reconstruction. Cancer 117:2833–2841

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Song J, Zhang X, Liu Q et al (2014) Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on immediate breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9:e98225

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J et al (2002) Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer 95:681–695

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE et al (2006) Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 24:2019–2027

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S et al (2007) Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol 25:2650–2655

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bossuyt V, Provenzano E, Symmans WF et al (2015) Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neoadjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collaboration. Ann Oncol 26:1280–1291

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al (2014) Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384:164–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nahabedian MY (2016) Implant-based breast reconstruction following conservative mastectomy: one-stage vs. two-stage approach. Gland Surg 5:47–54

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Spear SL, Seruya M, Rao SS et al (2012) Two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction using AlloDerm including outcomes of different timings of radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:1–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN et al (2016) The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69:149–162

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R (2017) Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 140:432–443

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Li S, Mu D, Liu C et al (2019) Complications following subpectoral versus prepectoral breast augmentation: a meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 43:890–898

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang ZH, Gao GX, Liu WH et al (2023) Single-port nipple-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction for breast cancer. Surg Endosc 37:3842–3851

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Baker BG, Irri R, MacCallum V et al (2018) A prospective comparison of short-term outcomes of subpectoral and prepectoral strattice-based immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:1077–1084

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chandarana MN, Jafferbhoy S, Marla S et al (2018) Acellular dermal matrix in implant-based immediate breast reconstructions: a comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral approach. Gland Surg 7:S64–S69

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Scardina L, Di Leone A, Biondi E et al (2022) Prepectoral vs. submuscular immediate breast reconstruction in patients undergoing mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: our early experience. J Pers Med 12(9):1533

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Varghese J, Gohari SS, Rizki H et al (2021) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on complications following immediate breast reconstruction. Breast 55:55–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Frey JD, Choi M, Karp NS (2017) The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to adjuvant chemotherapy in healing after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:10e–19e

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Clemens MW, Kronowitz SJ (2015) Current perspectives on radiation therapy in autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 4:222–231

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Li L, Su Y, Xiu B et al (2019) Comparison of prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomies: a systematic review and meta analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 45:1542–1550

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sobti N, Weitzman RE, Nealon KP et al (2020) Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Sci Rep 10:1137

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Li Y, Xu G, Yu N et al (2020) Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg 85:437–447

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chatterjee A, Nahabedian MY, Gabriel A et al (2018) Early assessment of post-surgical outcomes with pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: a literature review and meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol 117:1119–1130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Alcon A, Rosser M, Gedallovich J et al (2023) Long-term outcomes in prepectoral versus subpectoral two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 152:273–280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jimenez RB, Packowski K, Horick N et al (2023) The timing of acute and late complications following mastectomy and implant-based reconstruction. Ann Surg 278:e203–e208

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Viezel-Mathieu A et al (2021) Direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 148:882e–890e

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Urban C, Gonzalez E, Fornazari A et al (2022) Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without placement of acellular dermal matrix or mesh after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 150:973–983

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F, Klaassen-Federspiel F et al (2019) Prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction with complete ADM or synthetic mesh coverage - 36-Months follow-up in 200 reconstructed breasts. Breast 48:32–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Safran T, Al-Badarin F, Al-Halabi B et al (2022) Aesthetic limitations in direct-to-implant prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 150:22e–31e

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS (2017) Staged suprapectoral expander/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:30–39

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Downs RK, Hedges K (2016) An alternative technique for immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstruction-a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4:e821

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Deptula M, Zielinski J, Wardowska A et al (2019) Wound healing complications in oncological patients: perspectives for cellular therapy. Postepy Dermatol Alergol 36:139–146

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mitchem J, Herrmann D, Margenthaler JA et al (2008) Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on rate of tissue expander/implant loss and progression to successful breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Am J Surg 196:519–522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Oh E, Chim H, Soltanian HT (2012) The effects of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy on the surgical outcomes of breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65:e267-280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ishiba T, Aruga T, Miyamoto H et al (2022) Short- and long-term outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Surg Today 52:129–136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Donker M, Hage JJ, Woerdeman LA et al (2012) Surgical complications of skin sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 38:25–30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Weber WP, Haug M, Kurzeder C et al (2018) Oncoplastic breast consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 172:523–537

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Lai HW, Chen ST, Lin SL et al (2019) Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with gel implant: technique, preliminary results and patient-reported cosmetic outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 26:42–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Swisher SK, Vila J, Tucker SL et al (2016) Locoregional control according to breast cancer subtype and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 23:749–756

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hamann M, Brunnbauer M, Scheithauer H et al (2019) Quality of life in breast cancer patients and surgical results of immediate tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300:409–420

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Snell L et al (2012) Measuring and managing patient expectations for breast reconstruction: impact on quality of life and patient satisfaction. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 12:149–158

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS (2016) Primary buttonhole mastopexy and nipple-sparing mastectomy: a preliminary report. Ann Plast Surg 77:388–395

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pawloski KR, Srour MK, Moo TA et al (2023) Timing of chemotherapy and patient-reported outcomes after breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 30:2897–2909

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Albornoz CR, Matros E, McCarthy CM et al (2014) Implant breast reconstruction and radiation: a multicenter analysis of long-term health-related quality of life and satisfaction. Ann Surg Oncol 21:2159–2164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Gabriel A, Sigalove S, Sigalove NM et al (2019) Effect of body mass index on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 144:550–558

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gianni L, Huang CS, Egle D et al (2022) Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant treatment with or without atezolizumab in triple-negative, early high-risk and locally advanced breast cancer: NeoTRIP Michelangelo randomized study. Ann Oncol 33:534–543

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Mittendorf EA, Zhang H, Barrios CH et al (2020) Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in combination with sequential nab-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus placebo and chemotherapy in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion031): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet 396:1090–1100

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Nanda R, Liu MC, Yau C et al (2020) Effect of pembrolizumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy on pathologic complete response in women with early-stage breast cancer: an analysis of the ongoing phase 2 adaptively randomized I-SPY2 trial. JAMA Oncol 6:676–684

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M et al (2023) Efficacy of endocrine therapy plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab vs de-escalated chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive/ERBB2-positive early breast cancer: the neoadjuvant WSG-TP-II randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 9:946–954

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Villacampa G, Matikas A, Oliveira M et al (2023) Landscape of neoadjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 190:112885

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Zarba Meli E, De Santis A, Cortese G et al (2023) Nipple-sparing mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: definitive results with a long-term follow-up evaluation. Ann Surg Oncol 30:2163–2172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Baxi S, Yang A, Gennarelli RL et al (2018) Immune-related adverse events for anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 drugs: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 360:k793

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L et al (2020) Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 382:810–821

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Deng H, Wang L, Wang N et al (2023) Neoadjuvant checkpoint blockade in combination with chemotherapy in patients with tripe-negative breast cancer: exploratory analysis of real-world, multicenter data. BMC Cancer 23:29

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all the patients who participated in this study and provided us with research data. We also extend our gratitude to the surgeons who performed the operations on the patients.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jingjing Zhao and Zujin Chen contribute equally in this manuscript as first author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The First Department of Breast Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, He-Xi District, Tianjin, China

    Jingjing Zhao, Zujin Chen, Mengdie Wang, Linyue Hai & Chunhua Xiao

Authors
  1. Jingjing Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zujin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mengdie Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linyue Hai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chunhua Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chunhua Xiao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patients.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, J., Chen, Z., Wang, M. et al. Transaxillary Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Not: A Comparative Study with Analysis of Surgical Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 2304–2321 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03644-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03644-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation