Outcome Analysis Depending on the Different Types of Incision following Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Abstract

Background. Immediate breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is widely used for its cosmetic benefits. Due to the lack of guidelines, the types of incisions in NSM vary and which method is superior remains a debate. In this study, we hypothesized that the periareolar incision has a higher risk of complications, such as nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis, than other incisions. Methods. A retrospective chart review was conducted and divided into three groups: the periareolar, radial, and lateral incision groups. The reconstruction method and complications of NAC necrosis, wound dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, infection, and reconstruction failure were investigated. Results. A total of 103 patients (periareolar incision (33%, n = 34), radial incision (39.8%, n = 41), and lateral incision (27.2%, n = 28)) who underwent NSM and immediate breast reconstruction from 2018 to 2020 were included. The reconstruction methods were direct-to-implant, DIEP flap, LD flap, and PAP flap, and there was all of which had no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the reconstruction method ( p = 0.257 ). In terms of complications, there was no significant difference in NAC necrosis (29.4%, 19.5%, and 21.4%, in the periareolar, radial, and lateral groups, respectively; p = 0.578 ), wound dehiscence, seroma or hematoma, infection, and reconstruction failure. Conclusion. Breast reconstruction following NSM through periareolar incision does not increase the incidence of complications, including NAC necrosis. However, since only Asian patients with low BMI were included, if an appropriate patient group is selected for immediate reconstruction after NSM, reconstruction can be safely performed through the periareolar incision, and good cosmetic results can be obtained.

Inframammary versus Periareolar Incision: A Comparison of Early Complications in Nipple-sparing Mastectomy

“…The IMF approach is technically more challenging, while the periareolar approach has historically been linked to a greater rate of complications, including a higher rate of ischemia and necrosis of the NAC, as reported in series involving small numbers of patients and that mostly included a variety of different types of incision. 9,[12][13][14][15] Moreover, in addition to the heterogeneity of these samples, the learning curve of surgeons can particularly affect rates of NAC necrosis, with more recent studies reporting lower complication rates. 9,12 In this study, the early complications of NSM followed by immediate reconstruction performed at this institute were compared as a function of the type of incision (IMF or periareolar).…”