Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2025
Endoscopic Bilateral Nipple-sparing Mastectomy via a Single Axillary Incision with Immediate Pre-pectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
Published on: May 17, 2024
Reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: an
Kawun Chung1,2, Yanyan Xie1,2, Faqing Liang1,2
1Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Background:
Our center proposes a new technique that effectively provides space to broaden the surgical field of view and overcomes the limitations of endoscopy-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) by changing the dissection sequence and combining it with air inflation. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the new technique designated "reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) with subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR)" and the conventional E-NSM (C-E-NSM) with SBR.
Method:
All patients undergoing E-NSM with SBR at our breast center between April 2017 and December 2022 were included in this study. The cohort was divided into the C-E-NSM group and the R-E-NSM group. The operation time, anesthesia time, medical cost, complications, cosmetic outcomes, and oncological safety were compared.
Results:
Twenty-six and seventy-nine consecutive patients were included in the C-E-NSM and R-E-NSM groups, with average ages of 36.9 ± 7.0 years and 39.7 ± 8.4 years (P=0.128). Patients in the R-E-NSM group had significantly shorter operation time (204.6 ± 59.2 vs. 318.9 ± 75.5 minutes, p<0.001) and anesthesia time (279.4 ± 83.9 vs. 408.9 ± 87.4 minutes, p<0.001) and decreased medical costs [5063.4 (4439.6-6532.3) vs. 6404.2 (5152.5-7981.5), USD, p=0.001] and increase SCAR-Q scores (77.2 ± 17.1 vs. 68.8 ± 8.7, P=0.002) compared to the C-E-NSM group. Although trends increased in both the excellent rate of Ueda scores (53.8% vs. 42.3%, P = 0.144), excellent rate of Harris scores (44.0% vs. 63.1%, P=0.102), and decreased surgical complications (7.6% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.135) were observed in the R-E-NSM group, the differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes between the two groups.
Conclusion:
R-E-NSM improves cosmetic outcomes and efficiency of C-E-NSM, reduces medical costs, and has a trend of lower surgical complications while maintaining the safety of oncology. It is a safe and feasible option for oncological procedures that deserves to be promoted and widely adopted in practice.
