Comparative Study of Nipple–Areola Complex Position and Patient Satisfaction After Unilateral Mastectomy and Immediate Expander–Implant Reconstruction Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy
Major surgical concerns associated with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) are partial or total nipple–areola complex (NAC) loss, decreased sensation, and nipple malposition. Patient satisfaction and NAC outcomes including malposition in patients who have undergone unilateral expander–implant reconstruction after NSM as compared with skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) remain unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and NAC outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent spared or reconstructed NAC after unilateral NSM as compared with unilateral SSM.
Patients who underwent immediate expander–implant breast reconstruction following unilateral NSM or SSM were included. Medical records of patients from April 2010 to February 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Reconstruction-related complications such as infection, seroma, haematoma, delayed wound healing, and reconstruction failure were recorded. NAC outcome analysis was performed using preoperative and postoperative digital photographs for each patient. Patient satisfaction with the reconstructed breast and NAC was assessed using a study-specific questionnaire.
Delayed wound healing occurred in 18 of 55 NSM patients and 15 of 85 SSM patients (p = 0.040). Final reconstruction failure occurred in 0 NSM patients and 6 SSM patients (p = 0.043). The mean photography analysis score of total aesthetic outcome was 13.12 ± 2.39 in the NSM group and 14.06 ± 2.75 in the SSM group (p = 0.052). The mean questionnaire score of NAC position was 2.88 ± 0.85 in the NSM group and 3.80 ± 0.84 in the SSM group (p = 0.001). The mean questionnaire score of NAC sensitivity was 2.12 ± 0.58 in the NSM group and 1.84 ± 0.46 in the SSM group (p = 0.003). Satisfaction with the reconstructed breast was similar (p = 0.913) after NSM and SSM.
We observed no significant difference in breast reconstruction satisfaction between the NSM and SSM groups. Although overall satisfaction with breast reconstruction is high, patients in the NSM group often report dissatisfaction with nipple position. With a favourable score for NAC position, skin-sparing mastectomy followed by NAC reconstruction can be considered as a balanced alternative to NSM for properly selected patients with breast cancer.
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.
KeywordsNipple-sparing mastectomy Skin-sparing mastectomy Breast reconstruction Nipple malposition Patient satisfaction
None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 5.Didier F, Radice D, Gandini S, Bedolis R, Rotmensz N, Maldifassi A, Santillo B, Luini A, Galimberti V, Scaffidi E, Lupo F, Martella S, Petit JY (2009) Does nipple preservation in mastectomy improve satisfaction with cosmetic results, psychological adjustment, body image and sexuality? Breast Cancer Res Treat 118:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Petit JY, Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Rey P, Martella S, Didier F, Viale G, Veronesi P, Luini A, Galimberti V, Bedolis R, Rietjens M, Garusi C, De Lorenzi F, Bosco R, Manconi A, Ivaldi GB, Youssef O (2009) Nipple sparing mastectomy with nipple areola intraoperative radiotherapy: one thousand and one cases of a five years experience at the European institute of oncology of Milan (EIO). Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC, Luini A, Pluchinotta A, Pinotti M, Boratto MG, Ricci MD, Ruiz CA, Nisida AC, Veronesi P, Petit J, Arnone P, Bassi F, Disa JJ, Garcia-Etienne CA, Borgen PI (2006) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 203:704–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kim HJ, Park EH, Lim WS, Seo JY, Koh BS, Lee TJ, Eom JS, Lee SW, Son BH, Lee JW, Ahn SH (2010) Nipple areola skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure: a single center study. Ann Surg 251:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Wagner JL, Fearmonti R, Hunt KK, Hwang RF, Meric-Bernstam F, Kuerer HM, Bedrosian I, Crosby MA, Baumann DP, Ross MI, Feig BW, Krishnamurthy S, Hernandez M, Babiera GV (2012) Prospective evaluation of the nipple-areola complex sparing mastectomy for risk reduction and for early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19:1137–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.van Verschuer VM, Mureau MA, Gopie JP, Vos EL, Verhoef C, Menke-Pluijmers MB, Koppert LB (2016) Patient satisfaction and nipple-areola sensitivity after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate implant breast reconstruction in a high breast cancer risk population: nipple-sparing mastectomy versus skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Plast Surg 77:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Munhoz AM, Aldrighi C, Montag E, Arruda E, Aldrighi JM, Filassi JR, Ricci M, Brasil JA, Rezende V, Ferreira MC (2009) Optimizing the nipple-areola sparing mastectomy with double concentric periareolar incision and biodimensional expander-implant reconstruction: aesthetic and technical refinements. Breast 18:356–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar