Latissimus dorsi muscle flap (LDMF) is an important autogenous tissue for autogenous breast reconstruction after mastectomy. LDMF harvesting using a conventional open method is traumatic, and the scar is obvious. With the application of minimally invasive technology in various surgical fields, endoscopic and robotic technology for breast surgery, especially LDMF breast reconstruction, is also becoming mature. Endoscopic or robotic LDMF breast reconstruction has the advantages of no incision in the back, superior cosmetic effect of back, clear vision of surgical field, and low incidence of postoperative complications. It is a safe and effective method of breast reconstruction.
ObjectiveTo compare the surgical data, safety, cosmetic outcomes, and quality of life of patients underwent a single axillary incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with endoscopic harvesting of latissimus dorsi muscle flap (abbreviation as the “laparoscopic group”) and traditional open surgery of latissimus dorsi muscle flap harvesting for breast reconstruction after mastectomy (abbreviation as the “open group”). MethodsThe patients were collected, who underwent latissimus dorsi reconstruction at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University and the Fourth People’s Hospital of Sichuan Province from January 2021 to June 2024 from a prospective maintenance database, and then were assigned into a laparoscopic group and an open group according to the surgical method, and their basic information, information relevant operation, postoperative complications, and patient reported outcomes (BREAST-Q scale) score were compared between the two groups. ResultsA total of 73 patients were collected, including 23 patients in the endoscopic group and 50 patients in the traditional open group. A longer size of latissimus dorsi muscle flap was harvested in the endoscopic group as compared with the open group (P=0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in the total surgical complications, major complications, minor complications, and implant related complications between the two groups of patients (P>0.05). The most common complications in the patients of both groups was back seroma, 21.7% (5/23) in the endoscopic group and 22.0% (11/50) in the open group. The major complications did not happen in the endoscopic group, but happened in 2 cases in the open group (1 patient due to ischemic necrosis of the latissimus dorsi muscle and 1 patient due to breast infection resulting in implant removal). The total length of incisions in the endoscopic group was significantly smaller than that in the open group (P<0.001), and the points of the breast satisfaction (P=0.045), back satisfaction (P<0.001), and sexual health (P=0.028) of the patients in the endoscopic group were significantly higher than those in the open group. During the follow-up period, 3 patients (6.0%) had distant metastasis (all were lung metastasis) in the open group, and there was no local or regional recurrence, distant metastasis and specific death of breast cancer in the endoscopic group. ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that, for patients who have skin invasion but who desire breast reconstruction or have failed by prosthetic breast reconstruction (such as skin flap necrosis), traditional open latissimus dorsi muscle is a surgical option worth choosing. However, for breast cancer patients who do not need additional skin breast reconstruction, endoscopic latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction has greater advantages in cosmetic effect, and it is safe and effective.
Objective To explore the surgical technique and preliminary safety and aesthetic results of endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation for patients. MethodsThe clinical data of 25 patients who underwent endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation between April 2020 and January 2024 and met the selection criteria was retrospective analysed. The patients’ age ranged from 33 to 73 years, with a mean of 50.4 years, and the body mass index ranged from 16.8 to 26.6 kg/m2, with a mean of 21.5 kg/m2. They were all bilaterally injected with Amazingel, and the time between initial injections and surgery ranged from 17 to 26 years, with a mean of 21.4 years. Early safety was evaluated by the incidence of early postoperative complications, and early aesthetic results were evaluated using Harris scores (including breast shape satisfaction, sensation satisfaction, and elasticity satisfaction) at 3 months after operation. Results There were 9 cases underwent Amazingel removal (group A) and 16 cases underwent Amazingel removal with immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation (group B). Intraoperative removal of Amazingel ranged from 808 to 1 285 mL, with a mean of 1 050.7 mL; the mass of the capsule removed ranged from 36 to 169 g, with a mean of 103.6 g; and a gross anatomical prosthesis was used with a median size of 345 mL (range, 315-355 mL). The operation time ranged from 95 to 395 minutes, with a mean of 194.2 minutes; and the cost of the procedure ranged from 8000to 91 000 yuan, with a mean of 33 000 yuan. Patients had a median follow-up time of 22.7 months (range, 3.0-48.1 months). There was 1 case of intraoperative skin burn due to the operation of the electric scalpel, which healed naturally after operation without flap necrosis. There was no adverse conditions such as prosthesis outline showing, ripple sign, and capsular contracture during follow-up; a small amount of Amazingel residue was found in 2 patients at 1 year after operation. The Harris score at 3 months after operation was used to evaluate the early aesthetic results, and the breast shape, elasticity, and sensation satisfaction of group A were lower than group B, but the differences between the two groups were not significant (P>0.05). Conclusion Endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation is safe in the early stage with good aesthetic results, and it is also recommended that patients who had the indications for combined immediate breast augmentation after removal to rebuild the breast appearance.
ObjectiveTo explore the application and effectiveness of three-pedicle reduction mammoplasty in breast cancer patients with moderate or greater breast hypertrophy and/or moderate-to-severe breast ptosis. Methods The clinical data of 15 breast cancer female patients with hypertrophy and/or moderate-to-severe breast ptosis treated by three-pedicle reduction mammaplasty with inverted T incision between January 2019 and March 2021 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were aged 31-58 years, with a median age of 39 years. The disease duration ranged from 10 days to 9 months (median, 3.4 months). All patients had unifocal tumor, with a maximum diameter of primary tumor of 0.5-3.9 cm (mean, 2.0 cm), of which 12 were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma and 3 carcinoma in situ. Tumor stage: TisN0M0 in 3 cases, T1N0M0 in 4 cases, T1N2M0 in 2 cases, T2N0M0 in 4 cases, and T2N1M0 in 2 cases. The preoperative cup sizes of patients were D cup in 3 cases, DD cup in 1 case, E cup in 2 cases, EE cup in 2 cases, F cup in 2 cases, FF cup in 1 case, and ≥G cup in 4 cases. The distance from nipple to inframammary fold was 8-18 cm (mean, 12.2 cm) before operation. The patients were followed up regularly after operation to evaluate the breast reduction effect and complications; Breast cancer reporting outcome scale (BREAST-Q) was used to assess patients’ satisfaction and quality of life; and ultrasound, chest and abdominal CT, whole-body bone scan were performed to assess local tumor recurrence or distant metastasis. Results The postoperative nipple position was slightly higher than inframammary fold in all patients. Postoperative cup sizes were A cup in 3 cases, B cup in 6, C cup in 4, D cup in 1, and DD cup in 1, which showing significant difference when compared with preoperative cup sizes (Z=3.420, P=0.001). The median follow-up time was 9 months (range, 6-33 months). Postoperatively, 2 cases (13.3%) had wound-site cellulitis, 1 (6.7%) had mild fat liquefaction, 2 (13.3%) had nipple and areola hypoesthesia but recovered after 3 months. No complication such as fat necrosis, papillary areola complex, or flap necrosis occurred. All patients had undergone adjuvant radiotherapy, of which 1 (6.7%) showed mild skin color change after radiotherapy, but no radiotherapy-related complication occurred in all patients. No patient was readmitted, received reoperation, or delayed to adjuvant therapy due to complications. In the BREAST-Q score, breast satisfaction and quality of life scores at 3 and 6 months after operation were significantly better than those before operation and at 1 month after operation (P<0.05); no significant difference was found between at 1 month after operation and before operation (P>0.05). Nipple satisfaction scores at 1, 3, and 6 months after operation were 15.6±2.2, 18.5±1.4, 19.3±0.7, respectively. At discharge after operation, the patient’s satisfaction with the outcome of the operation was scored 84.7±11.4. The score of adverse events of radiotherapy at 6 months after operation was 6.5±0.8. During the follow-up, patient had no local recurrence, distant metastasis, or breast cancer related death. Conclusion For breast cancer patients with moderate or greater breast hypertrophy and/or moderate-to-severe breast ptosis, three-pedicle reduction mammoplasty can not only remove the lesions, but also reduce hypertrophic breasts, accomplish the mammoplasty, reduce the radiotherapy complications, and improve the satisfaction and quality of life of patients.