Search

Background: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved aesthetics without compromising oncologic safety. Subpectoral breast reconstruction has long been standard practice, although prepectoral reconstruction has recently resurged in popularity. Due to this recent paradigm shift, studies comparing long-term outcomes by reconstructive plane are lacking., Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive NSMs with implant-based reconstruction in either the prepectoral or subpectoral plane from 2014 to 2018. Patient demographics, implant specifications, and operative details were collected to evaluate primary outcomes of prosthetic failure and unplanned reoperations by reconstructive plane. Secondary outcomes included animation deformity, capsular contracture, rippling, plane change, and minor revisions, including fat grafting. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess outcomes., Results: Overall, 405 NSMs were performed on 228 women (subpectoral = 202, prepectoral = 203), with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years (standard deviation 1.1). During the study period (2014-2018), a shift from subpectoral to predominantly prepectoral mastectomies occurred in 2017. Prepectoral reconstructions were more often direct-to-implant (DTI) compared with subpectoral (73.9% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.001). Prepectoral reconstruction demonstrated significantly reduced prosthetic failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.65) and unplanned reoperations (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.77) compared with subpectoral reconstruction after controlling for implant characteristics and other possible confounders. Prepectoral patients experienced decreased animation deformity overall (19.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), with plane changes seen in 10.6% of subpectoral reconstructions for animation deformity correction. Prepectoral patients experienced an increase in rippling (15.3% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003) without a significant increase in fat grafting (subpectoral = 11.6% vs. prepectoral = 12.3%, p = 0.829)., Conclusions: This single-institution experience compares late complications of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction following NSM. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed with improved understanding of mastectomy planes, readily affords DTI reconstruction, and reduces animation deformity at the expense of rippling., (© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: As the demand for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) increases and surgeons expand the eligibility criteria, a subset of patients may become candidates following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). However, the impact of NACT on postoperative complications remains unclear as the current literature is discordant., Methods: A single-institution, retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing NSM from 1989 to 2017. Patient demographics, surgical intervention, systemic treatment, and complication rates were collected. Primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative complications, including nipple-areolar necrosis, skin flap necrosis, infection, wound dehiscence, hematoma, and seroma. Secondary outcomes included characterization of the timing between chemotherapy and surgical intervention, and the impact on complication rates. Each breast was considered independently for analysis, and breasts undergoing either NACT or primary surgery (PS) were compared., Results: Of the 832 breasts included, 88 (10.6%) received NACT and 744 (89.4%) underwent PS. Baseline complication rates were not significantly different between the NACT group and the PS group (5.7% vs. 10.6%; p = 0.119). When controlling for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and prior radiation, NACT was not a predictor of complications. Time from completion of NACT to PS occurred at a median of 40.5 days (interquartile range 31.3-55.3), and decreased intervals were not associated with increased complication rates., Conclusions: Postoperative complications following NSM in patients completing NACT are comparable with those receiving PS. Patients undergoing NACT do not have a significantly increased risk of necrosis, unintended reoperations, or nipple loss. NACT should not be considered a contraindication for NSM.

Background: The aim of this study is to describe a less aggressive approach to management of positive nipple margin following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), allowing for preservation of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC)., Study Design: A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed for patients undergoing NSM from 1989 to 2017. Positive nipple margin was defined as any residual invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) within the additional nipple margin. Management included complete NAC removal, subareolar shave biopsy, or observation alone. Primary outcomes included rates of positive nipple margin and local recurrence., Results: A total of 819 breasts underwent NSM, yielding a total of 32 breasts (3.9%) with positive nipple margin. Management included 11 (34.4%) subareolar shave biopsies, 15 (46.9%) complete NAC excisions, and 5 (15.6%) with observation alone, plus 1 (3.1%) lost to follow-up. Final pathology after subareolar shave biopsy did not reveal any residual disease, and no patients developed NAC necrosis or required NAC removal. Final pathology after NAC excision revealed 3 of 15 with additional disease (1 invasive ductal carcinoma, 2 DCIS). Of the five patients who had no subsequent intervention, tumor pathology was DCIS in all cases. One patient received adjuvant radiation therapy. Mean time to intervention was 3.7 ± 1.9 with mean follow-up of 2.9 years., Conclusions: Management of positive nipple margin after NSM with subareolar shave biopsy is a safe alternative to preserve the NAC.

Service intensity can vary dramatically across the clients who are served within a psychosocial intervention. But studies of the determinants of intensity are disappointing, and examinations of its impacts on key client behaviors tend to be biased by unaccounted for reciprocal relations. The author argues that it may be useful to take into account organizational attributes. Service intensity may be more fully explained by attributes such as program life-cycles and learning routines, administrative reforms, worker attention spans, worker dispositions, and caseloads. Data from an intervention for adults with homeless experience and substance abuse problems (n = 136) support the author's argument. Results suggest that intervention leaders must become aware of and capable of manipulating the organizational context of treatment.