A retrospective cohort study of the postoperative prothesis-related complications of single-port endoscopic assisted versus open surgery on nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction
10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20231008-00159
- VernacularTitle:乳腺癌腔镜辅助对比开放下保留乳头乳晕乳房皮下全切加一期假体植入重建术后假体相关并发症的回顾性队列研究
- Author:
Jiangtao LI
1
;
Zhihan LIU
;
Chenlu LIU
;
Xinyu OU
;
Yiwen LU
;
Shicheng SU
Author Information
1. 中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院乳腺肿瘤中心，广州 510120
- Keywords:
Breast neoplasms;
Prosthesis implantation;
Nipple sparing mastectomy;
Prosthesis-related complications;
Single-port endoscope
- From:
Chinese Journal of Surgery
2024;62(2):141-146
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To examine the postoperative prosthesis-related complications, short-term surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction between patients who underwent endoscopic assisted versus conventional nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate prothesis breast reconstruction.Methods:This study was a retrospective cohort study. A retrospective analysis was performed on clinical data of 104 women with breast cancer who received nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate prothesis breast reconstruction from August 2021 to August 2022 at the Breast Tumor Center, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University. They were divided into two groups according to the surgical approach. A total of 53 patients, aged (43.3±9.9) years (range: 25 to 66 years), underwent endoscopic nipple sparing mastectomy (E-NSM group) and immediate prothesis breast reconstruction. The other 51 patients aged (39.9±7.8) years (range: 25 to 54 years) underwent conventional open surgery (C-NSM group). Short-term surgical outcomes including operation time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative blood loss, and postoperative drainage volume in 2 days were recorded. Patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction was compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Postoperative prothesis-related complications were investigated to determine the experience to deal with them.Results:No postoperative prosthesis-related infection, prosthesis loss, or necrosis of the nipple-areola complex occurred in the E-NSM group, while 1 patient suffered from hematoma, whose wound was skinned with resuture after disinfection. Five patients in the C-NSM group had prosthesis-related infection, 2 of them received prosthesis removal surgery combined with sufficient antimicrobial agent, another one underwent surgery for subcutaneous placement of the drain, as well as antimicrobial agent therapy, and the rest of them healed up only with antimicrobial agent therapy. All recovered well after treatment. One patient recovered from necrosis of the nipple-areola complex through periodic iodophor disinfection and dressing which ended in improvement of necrotic areas, another patient who had hematoma accepted the same treatment mentioned above and also healed. All the patients mentioned above are now in stable conditions. Patients in the E-NSM group had higher satisfaction with the cosmetic results of the breast prosthesis implant than those in the C-NSM group ( Z=-4.511, P<0.01). Conclusions:Both surgical approaches were proven to be safe and effective with a low rate of postoperative prosthesis-related complications. Patients in the E-NSM group were more satisfied with the cosmetic results of breast reconstruction than those in the C-NSM group.
