Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2/2021

01-04-2021 | Mastectomy | Original Article

Sub-muscular Reconstruction after NAC Sparing Mastectomy: Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction with Human ADM Versus Tissue Expander

Authors: Rossella Sgarzani, Silvia Pasquali, Federico Buggi, Daniela Tognali, Francesco Marongiu, Matteo Mingozzi, Davide Melandri, Paolo Giovanni Morselli, Annalisa Curcio

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 2/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Nipple areola complex (NAC) sparing mastectomy allows good oncological and aesthetic results. The study compares the results, in terms of self-evaluated satisfaction and symmetry, of direct to implant (DTI) sub-muscular breast reconstruction, with the aid of human acellular dermal matrix (ADM) versus two-stage reconstruction with sub-muscular tissue expander, followed by implant.

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective, observational, single-center, non-randomized, case-control study. Inclusion criteria were: unilateral NAC sparing mastectomy at Forlì Hospital between 2014 and 2018; sub-muscular reconstruction; minimum follow-up of 12 months from the reconstructive stage; no history of radiotherapy. Patients were divided into two groups: group A included patients who underwent DTI breast reconstruction with the aid of human ADM; group B were those who underwent a two-stage reconstruction with tissue expander then implant. We collected data on: (1) Self-evaluated satisfaction by Breast Q questionnaire (scores from 0 to 100). (2) Observer-evaluated symmetry. Bi-dimensional photographs were collected and evaluated by 11 breast surgeons blinded to each other, who assigned a score for symmetry (from 0 to 10). (3) Symmetry of anthropometric measures collected by hand and volume estimated by Breast V application.

Results

Group A included 28 patients; group included B 26 patients. Breast-Q questionnaires reported the following results: satisfaction with breasts in group A 65 ± 12 versus group B 68 ± 14; satisfaction with outcome in group A 88 ± 16 versus group B 93 ± 11; psychosocial well-being in group A 71 ± 20 versus group B 76 ± 17; sexual well-being in group A 63 ± 26 versus group B 60 ± 13; physical well-being in group A 68 ± 15 versus group B 60 ± 12. The average symmetry breast score assigned to group A was 6.9, versus group B 7.2. Regarding the anthropometric measures in group A, the differences between right and left were major to those in group B. Regarding breast volume, the mean difference between right and left in group A was 31.89 cc ± 24.97, whereas in group B was 25.46 cc ± 23.59.

Conclusion

Our data show better symmetry and better psychosocial well-being in the two-stage reconstruction, and higher satisfaction with sexual and physical well-being in DTI reconstructions. These aspects should be discussed with the patient while collecting the informed consent.

Level of Evidence IV

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.
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC et al (2006) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 203(5):704–714CrossRef Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC et al (2006) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 203(5):704–714CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Dillman D (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York, p 375 Dillman D (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York, p 375
4.
go back to reference Folli S, Curcio A, Melandri D et al (2018) A new human-derived acellular dermal matrix for breast reconstruction available for the european market: preliminary results. Aesth Plast Surg 42(2):434–441CrossRef Folli S, Curcio A, Melandri D et al (2018) A new human-derived acellular dermal matrix for breast reconstruction available for the european market: preliminary results. Aesth Plast Surg 42(2):434–441CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Longo B, Farcomeni A, Ferri G et al (2013) The BREAST-V: a unifying predictive formula for volume assessment in small, medium and large breasts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 132(1):1e–7eCrossRef Longo B, Farcomeni A, Ferri G et al (2013) The BREAST-V: a unifying predictive formula for volume assessment in small, medium and large breasts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 132(1):1e–7eCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Folli S, Mingozzi M, Curcio A et al (2015) Nipple sparing mastectomy: an alternative technique for large ptotic breasts. J Am Coll Surg 220(5):e65–e69CrossRef Folli S, Mingozzi M, Curcio A et al (2015) Nipple sparing mastectomy: an alternative technique for large ptotic breasts. J Am Coll Surg 220(5):e65–e69CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T et al (2010) Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 125(6):1585–1595CrossRef Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T et al (2010) Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 125(6):1585–1595CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Sgarzani R, Negosanti L, Morselli PG et al (2015) Patient satisfaction and quality of life in DIEAP flap versus implant breast reconstruction. Surg Res Pract. 2015:405163PubMedPubMedCentral Sgarzani R, Negosanti L, Morselli PG et al (2015) Patient satisfaction and quality of life in DIEAP flap versus implant breast reconstruction. Surg Res Pract. 2015:405163PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW, Stewart J et al (1999) The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur J Surg Oncol. 25(6):566–570CrossRef Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW, Stewart J et al (1999) The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur J Surg Oncol. 25(6):566–570CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Harris JR, Levene MB, Svesson G et al (1979) Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 5(2):257–261CrossRef Harris JR, Levene MB, Svesson G et al (1979) Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 5(2):257–261CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kroll S, Baldwin B (1992) A comparison of outcomes using three different methods of breast reconstruction. Plast Recontr Surg. 90(3):455–462CrossRef Kroll S, Baldwin B (1992) A comparison of outcomes using three different methods of breast reconstruction. Plast Recontr Surg. 90(3):455–462CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC et al (2006) Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 15(1):52–57CrossRef Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Santos AC et al (2006) Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 15(1):52–57CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pezner RD, Lipsett JA, Vora NL et al (1985) (1985) Limited usefulness of observer-based cosmesis scales employed to evaluate patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Tadiat Oncol Biol Phys 11(6):1117–1119CrossRef Pezner RD, Lipsett JA, Vora NL et al (1985) (1985) Limited usefulness of observer-based cosmesis scales employed to evaluate patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Tadiat Oncol Biol Phys 11(6):1117–1119CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H et al (2007) The use of breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast 16(4):429–435CrossRef Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H et al (2007) The use of breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast 16(4):429–435CrossRef
15.
go back to reference O’Connel RL, Khabra K, Bamber JC et al (2018) Validation of Vectra XT three-dimensional imaging system for measuring breast volume and symmetry following oncological reconstruction. Breast Cancer Res Treat 171(2):391–398CrossRef O’Connel RL, Khabra K, Bamber JC et al (2018) Validation of Vectra XT three-dimensional imaging system for measuring breast volume and symmetry following oncological reconstruction. Breast Cancer Res Treat 171(2):391–398CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Swobodnik A et al (2012) Objective breast symmetry evaluation using 3-D surface imaging. Breast 21(2):152–158CrossRef Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Swobodnik A et al (2012) Objective breast symmetry evaluation using 3-D surface imaging. Breast 21(2):152–158CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cardoso JC, Cardoso JS, Wild T et al (2009) Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116(1):149–152CrossRef Cardoso JC, Cardoso JS, Wild T et al (2009) Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116(1):149–152CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J et al (2017) Direct-to-implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective multicentre stydy. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(5):869–877CrossRef Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J et al (2017) Direct-to-implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective multicentre stydy. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(5):869–877CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Carminati M, Sempf D, Bonfirraro PP et al (2018) Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix compared with tissue-expander breast reconstruction: rate of infection. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6(12):e1949CrossRef Carminati M, Sempf D, Bonfirraro PP et al (2018) Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix compared with tissue-expander breast reconstruction: rate of infection. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6(12):e1949CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Negenborn VL, Smit JM, Dikmans REG et al (2019) Short-term cost-effectiveness of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage expander-implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 106(5):586–595CrossRef Negenborn VL, Smit JM, Dikmans REG et al (2019) Short-term cost-effectiveness of one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage expander-implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 106(5):586–595CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Joyce CW, Morrison CM, Sgarzani R et al (2013) Patient preferences in an online breast reconstruction resource. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(12):e380–e381CrossRef Joyce CW, Morrison CM, Sgarzani R et al (2013) Patient preferences in an online breast reconstruction resource. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(12):e380–e381CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Sub-muscular Reconstruction after NAC Sparing Mastectomy: Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction with Human ADM Versus Tissue Expander
Authors
Rossella Sgarzani
Silvia Pasquali
Federico Buggi
Daniela Tognali
Francesco Marongiu
Matteo Mingozzi
Davide Melandri
Paolo Giovanni Morselli
Annalisa Curcio
Publication date
01-04-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Keyword
Mastectomy
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02007-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2/2021 Go to the issue