Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2018

29.06.2018 | Breast Oncology

Robotic Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study

verfasst von: Benjamin Sarfati, MD, Samuel Struk, MD, Nicolas Leymarie, MD, Jean-François Honart, MD, Heba Alkhashnam, MD, Kim Tran de Fremicourt, MD, Angelica Conversano, MD, Françoise Rimareix, MD, Marie Simon, MD, Stefan Michiels, MD, Frédéric Kolb, MD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 9/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) could be a significant advancement in the treatment of breast cancers and prophylaxis because the mastectomy is performed without leaving any scar on the breast. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and the safety of RNSM with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR).

Methods

In this prospective study, RNSM with IPBR was offered to patients with breast cup size A, B or C and ptosis grade ≤ 2. In case of oncologic surgery, RNSM was proposed only if the tumor was located more than 2 cm away from the nipple-areola complex (NAC) and if postoperative radiation was not indicated. In case of prophylactic surgery, RNSM was proposed only if a high-risk genetic mutation had been identified. The primary endpoint was the rate of skin or NAC necrosis. The rate of conversion to open technique, the duration of the procedure, and postoperative complications were also analyzed.

Results

Sixty-three RNSM with IPBR were performed in 33 patients. There were no cases of mastectomy skin flap or NAC necrosis. We had to convert to an open technique in one case (1.6%). Three infections occurred (4.8%), one leading to implant loss (1.6%). No other major complications were observed.

Conclusions

Preliminary data attest to the feasibility, the reproducibility, and the safety of this approach. However, long-term data are needed to confirm the oncological safety and the esthetic stability of the result.
Trial registration identifier NCT02673268.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Endara M, Chen D, Verma K, et al. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with pooled analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1043–54.CrossRefPubMed Endara M, Chen D, Verma K, et al. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with pooled analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1043–54.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Headon HL, Kasem A, Mokbel K. The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43:328–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Headon HL, Kasem A, Mokbel K. The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43:328–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi M, Frey JD, Alperovich M, et al. “Breast in a Day”: examining single-stage immediate, permanent implant reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:184e–91e.CrossRefPubMed Choi M, Frey JD, Alperovich M, et al. “Breast in a Day”: examining single-stage immediate, permanent implant reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:184e–91e.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat De Vita R, Zoccali G, Buccheri EM, et al. Outcome evaluation after 2023 nipple-sparing mastectomies: our experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:335e–47e.CrossRefPubMed De Vita R, Zoccali G, Buccheri EM, et al. Outcome evaluation after 2023 nipple-sparing mastectomies: our experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:335e–47e.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Salgarello M, Visconti G, Barone-Adesi L. Nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction: cosmetic outcomes and technical refinements. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1460–71.CrossRefPubMed Salgarello M, Visconti G, Barone-Adesi L. Nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction: cosmetic outcomes and technical refinements. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1460–71.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Qureshi AA, Odom EB, Parikh RP, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of aesthetics and satisfaction in immediate breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy with implants and fat grafting. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:999–1008.CrossRefPubMed Qureshi AA, Odom EB, Parikh RP, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of aesthetics and satisfaction in immediate breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy with implants and fat grafting. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:999–1008.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Donovan CA, Harit AP, Chung A, et al. Oncological and surgical outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy: do incisions matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3226–31.CrossRefPubMed Donovan CA, Harit AP, Chung A, et al. Oncological and surgical outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy: do incisions matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3226–31.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi M, Frey JD, Salibian AA, et al. Nipple-areola complex malposition in nipple-sparing mastectomy: a review of risk factors and corrective techniques from greater than 1000 reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:247e–57e.CrossRefPubMed Choi M, Frey JD, Salibian AA, et al. Nipple-areola complex malposition in nipple-sparing mastectomy: a review of risk factors and corrective techniques from greater than 1000 reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:247e–57e.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Lai H-W, Chen S-T, Chen D-R, et al. Current trends in and indications for endoscopy-assisted breast surgery for breast cancer: results from a six-year study conducted by the Taiwan Endoscopic Breast Surgery Cooperative Group. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0150310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lai H-W, Chen S-T, Chen D-R, et al. Current trends in and indications for endoscopy-assisted breast surgery for breast cancer: results from a six-year study conducted by the Taiwan Endoscopic Breast Surgery Cooperative Group. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0150310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Leff DR, Vashisht R, Yongue G, et al. Endoscopic breast surgery: where are we now and what might the future hold for video-assisted breast surgery? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;125:607–25.CrossRefPubMed Leff DR, Vashisht R, Yongue G, et al. Endoscopic breast surgery: where are we now and what might the future hold for video-assisted breast surgery? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;125:607–25.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Tukenmez M, Ozden BC, Agcaoglu O, et al. Videoendoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24:77–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tukenmez M, Ozden BC, Agcaoglu O, et al. Videoendoscopic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24:77–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Toesca A, Peradze N, Galimberti V, et al. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with implant: first report of surgical technique. Ann Surg. 2017;266(2):e28–e30.CrossRefPubMed Toesca A, Peradze N, Galimberti V, et al. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with implant: first report of surgical technique. Ann Surg. 2017;266(2):e28–e30.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Toesca A, Peradze N, Manconi A, et al. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer: feasibility and safety study. Breast. 2017;31:51–6.CrossRefPubMed Toesca A, Peradze N, Manconi A, et al. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer: feasibility and safety study. Breast. 2017;31:51–6.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Sarfati B, Honart JF, Leymarie N, et al. Robotic-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy: a feasibility study on cadaveric models. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1571–2.CrossRefPubMed Sarfati B, Honart JF, Leymarie N, et al. Robotic-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy: a feasibility study on cadaveric models. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1571–2.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Schroeck FR, Jacobs BL, Bhayani SB, et al. Cost of new technologies in prostate cancer treatment: systematic review of costs and cost effectiveness of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy. Eur Urol. 2017;72:712–35.CrossRefPubMed Schroeck FR, Jacobs BL, Bhayani SB, et al. Cost of new technologies in prostate cancer treatment: systematic review of costs and cost effectiveness of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy. Eur Urol. 2017;72:712–35.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Manciu S, Dragomir M, Curea F, et al. A solution in search of a problem: a Bayesian analysis of 343 robotic procedures performed by a single surgical team. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27:363–74.CrossRefPubMed Manciu S, Dragomir M, Curea F, et al. A solution in search of a problem: a Bayesian analysis of 343 robotic procedures performed by a single surgical team. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27:363–74.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Clemens MW, Kronowitz S, Selber JC. Robotic-assisted latissimus dorsi harvest in delayed-immediate breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:20–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Clemens MW, Kronowitz S, Selber JC. Robotic-assisted latissimus dorsi harvest in delayed-immediate breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:20–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Metadaten
Titel
Robotic Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study
verfasst von
Benjamin Sarfati, MD
Samuel Struk, MD
Nicolas Leymarie, MD
Jean-François Honart, MD
Heba Alkhashnam, MD
Kim Tran de Fremicourt, MD
Angelica Conversano, MD
Françoise Rimareix, MD
Marie Simon, MD
Stefan Michiels, MD
Frédéric Kolb, MD
Publikationsdatum
29.06.2018
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 9/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6555-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.