Comparison of Reconstructive Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients With Preexisting Subpectoral Implants

Prabhakaran, Sangeetha; Melody, Megan; Trotta, Rose; Lleshi, Amina; Sun, Weihong; Smith, Paul D.; Khakpour, Nazanin; Dayıcıoğlu, Deniz

doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000000751

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients can then be reassured that having a breast augmentation does not prevent them from getting properly screened and appropriately treated for breast cancer 19 . In addition, a prior study has shown that implant-sparing mastectomies with delayed implant exchange in patients with pre-existing subpectoral implants are safe, have fewer complications, and have similar tumor margins when compared with tissue expander placement 20 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 In addition, a prior study has shown that implant-sparing mastectomies with delayed implant exchange in patients with pre-existing subpectoral implants are safe, have fewer complications, and have similar tumor margins when compared with tissue expander placement. 20 The study was limited by being observational and retrospective in nature. Because only the NISM group had a prior breast augmentation, the comparison of the groups may be skewed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preservation of the Implant in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomies: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Soni

Smith

et al. 2021

Ann Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mastectomies are an integral part of breast cancer treatment for many patients. 1 Of those patients, a significant number have previously undergone breast augmentation before being diagnosed with breast cancer. Therefore, we developed the novel technique of performing nipple- and implant-sparing mastectomies (NISMs) for women with prior breast augmentations. This study will assess the plausibility of using NISMs versus nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSMs) in this subgroup of patients by comparing the complication rates. Methods Data were collected on age, tumor size, tumor grade, receptors, and the interval between mastectomy and implant exchange for both groups. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics. Independent samples t tests, χ2 tests, and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the NISM and NSM cohorts. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between complications and mastectomy type and was summarized as an odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. Results Fifteen patients underwent an NISM and 35 patients underwent an NSM. The overall rate of complications was less in NISM cases than in NSM cases (20% vs 27%). However, this difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.18–1.64; P = 0.278). Conclusions The overall complication rate was lower with NISMs compared with NSMs. Nipple- and implant-sparing mastectomy is a novel, viable, and safe option for patients with breast cancer and a history of submuscular breast augmentation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%