Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do Nipple Necrosis Rates Differ in Prepectoral Versus Submuscular Implant-Based Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy?

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has become increasingly popular, given its oncologic safety and preserved nipple areolar complex (NAC) aesthetics. Reconstruction has recently shifted from traditional submuscular (SM) to prepectoral (PP) implant placement. It remains unclear how the plane of implant placement might affect NAC perfusion. Our goal was to assess postoperative outcomes following NSM with SM versus PP implant placement.

Methods

A retrospective single-institution review was performed of all patients undergoing NSM and immediate breast reconstruction in either the PP or SM plane from January 2015 to June 2019. Clinicopathologic details and 90-day complication rates were collected. SM and PP group complications were compared using Chi square analysis.

Results

A total of 288 breasts (160 patients) were included, including SM in 79 cases (44 patients) and PP in 209 cases (116 patients). Clinicopathologic features between groups were similar. Overall, the rate of NAC necrosis was 15.1%, with no differences between the SM and PP cohorts (p = 0.79). In cases of NAC necrosis, there was no difference between the SM and PP groups in return to the operating room for debridement (p = 1.0) or explant (p = 0.33).

Conclusions

In our cohort, immediate implant-based reconstruction in the SM and PP planes following NSM was equally safe with respect to postoperative complications and NAC ischemia.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Valero MG, et al. Increase in Utilization of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: Indications, Complications, and Oncologic Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:344–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith BL, et al. Oncologic safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy in women with breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225:361–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Galimberti V, et al. Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: Review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications. Breast. 2017;34(Suppl 1):S82–4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Moyer HR, Ghazi B, Daniel JR, Gasgarth R, Carlson GW. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: technical aspects and aesthetic outcomes. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2012;68(5):446–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0b013e3182394bba

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Colwell AS, et al. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: predictors of complications, reconstruction outcomes, and 5-year trends. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(3):496–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000438056.67375.75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frey JD, Choi M, Salibian AA, Karp NS. Comparison of outcomes with tissue expander, immediate implant, and autologous breast reconstruction in greater than 1000 nipple-sparing mastectomies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1300–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Carlson GW, Chu CK, Moyer HR, Duggal C, Losken A. Predictors of nipple ischemia after nipple sparing mastectomy. Breast J. 2014;20:69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang CY, et al. Intraoperative assessment of the relationship between nipple circulation and incision site in nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant breast reconstruction using the SPY imaging system. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;80:S59–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Manrique OJ, et al. Prepectoral Breast reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate mastopexy. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;85(1):18–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:432–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhat D, Darrach H, Sacks JM. Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction. Curr. Breast Cancer Rep. 2018;10:48–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-018-0276-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sobti N, et al. Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Sci Rep. 2020;10:1137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chatterjee A, et al. Early assessment of post-surgical outcomes with pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: a literature review and meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117:1119–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Djohan R, et al. Patient satisfaction following nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: an 8-year outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(3):818–29 https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181ccdaa4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yueh JH, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: evaluation of patient satisfaction, aesthetic results, and sensation. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;62(5):586–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0b013e31819fb1ac.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wei CH, et al. Psychosocial and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J. 2016;22:10–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Romanoff A, et al. A comparison of patient-reported outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional mastectomy with reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2909–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ahn SJ, Woo TY, Lee DW, Lew DH, Song SY. Nipple-areolar complex ischemia and necrosis in nipple-sparing mastectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(8):1170–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.05.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Salibian AA, Frey JD, Bekisz JM, Karp NS, Choi M. Ischemic Complications after Nipple-sparing Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7:e2280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Frey JD, Choi M, Karp NS. The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to adjuvant chemotherapy in healing after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:10e–9e.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel AU, et al. Functional return after implant-based breast reconstruction: a prospective study of objective and patient-reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2020;73(5):850–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.11.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Walia GS, et al. Prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander placement: a clinical and quality of life outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(4):e1731. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000001731.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Salibian AH, Harness JK, Mowlds DS. Staged suprapectoral expander/implant reconstruction without acellular dermal matrix following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:30–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Salibian AA, Frey JD, Karp NS. Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surgery. 2019;8(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2018.08.01.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Margenthaler JA, et al. Oncologic safety and outcomes in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230:535–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Young WA, et al. Outcomes of > 1300 nipple-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction: the impact of expanding indications on complications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3115–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Frey JD, Salibian AA, Levine JP, Karp NS, Choi M. Incision choices in nipple-sparing mastectomy: a comparative analysis of outcomes and evolution of a clinical algorithm. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2081;142:826E–35E.

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Holly R. Zink, MSA, of the Department of Surgery, University of Kansas, Kansas City, for providing medical writing and editorial support for this research. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Amin Amin, Dr. Christa Balanoff, and Dr. Jamie Wagner for providing editorial comments on the abstract.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA

    Kelsey E. Larson MD

  2. Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA

    Sterling E. Braun MD & James A. Butterworth MD

  3. University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA

    Mollie Dreicer BS

Authors
  1. Sterling E. Braun MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mollie Dreicer BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James A. Butterworth MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kelsey E. Larson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sterling E. Braun MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

The authors have no financial interests to declare in relation to the contents of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braun, S.E., Dreicer, M., Butterworth, J.A. et al. Do Nipple Necrosis Rates Differ in Prepectoral Versus Submuscular Implant-Based Reconstruction After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy?. Ann Surg Oncol 27, 4760–4766 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08887-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08887-8

Search

Navigation