Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in results between the radial and the inframammary approach in nipple-/skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. Methods: The patients were divided into two groups (group 1: radial incision; group 2: inframammary fold incision [IMF]), each consisting of two subgroups for direct-to-implant reconstruction (1a, 2a) and expander reconstruction (1b, 2b). The patients were operated on between March 2012 and May 2017. Preoperative tumor parameters, reconstruction parameters, postoperative tumor parameters, and immediate and late complications were assessed. Postoperative photographs were evaluated by the patients and 8 plastic surgeons by means of grading (1–5) and the visual analog scale (VAS; 1–10). Results: Enrolled in this study were 28 patients, namely, 7 patients in each subgroup. The median age was 46 years, and the median follow-up period was 40 months. No immediate complications occurred. Three patients had late complications, but there was no case of evident capsular fibrosis. Twenty-seven patients (96.42%) evaluated the postoperative result as excellent/good. The postoperative evaluation by the plastic surgeons was excellent/good for a median of 18 patients (64.28%). Group 1 showed a median VAS score of 7.63 (expander group: 7.50; direct-to-implant group: 7.75); the median VAS score for group 2 was 8.25 (expander group: 8.75; direct-to-implant group: 7.50). Conclusions: Our study shows good results for implant breast reconstruction in both groups, with minimally better results for the IMF group. In the direct-to-implant subgroups, the radial group showed slightly better results.

1.
Nahabedian
MY
.
Implant-based breast reconstruction: strategies to achieve optimal outcomes and minimize complications
.
J Surg Oncol
.
2016
Jun
;
113
(
8
):
895
905
.
[PubMed]
0022-4790
2.
Cordeiro
PG
,
Jazayeri
L
.
Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: An Evolution of the Conceptual and Technical Approach over a Two-Decade Period
.
Plast Reconstr Surg
.
2016
Jul
;
138
(
1
):
1
11
.
[PubMed]
0032-1052
3.
Albornoz
CR
,
Bach
PB
,
Mehrara
BJ
,
Disa
JJ
,
Pusic
AL
,
McCarthy
CM
, et al.
A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates
.
Plast Reconstr Surg
.
2013
Jan
;
131
(
1
):
15
23
.
[PubMed]
0032-1052
4.
Cordeiro
PG
,
McCarthy
CM
.
A single surgeon’s 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: part I. A prospective analysis of early complications
.
Plast Reconstr Surg
.
2006
Sep
;
118
(
4
):
825
31
.
[PubMed]
0032-1052
5.
Fischer
JP
,
Wes
AM
,
Tuggle
CT
 3rd
,
Serletti
JM
,
Wu
LC
.
Risk analysis of early implant loss after immediate breast reconstruction: a review of 14,585 patients
.
J Am Coll Surg
.
2013
Dec
;
217
(
6
):
983
90
.
[PubMed]
1072-7515
6.
Pinsolle
V
,
Grinfeder
C
,
Mathoulin-Pelissier
S
,
Faucher
A
.
Complications analysis of 266 immediate breast reconstructions
.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
.
2006
;
59
(
10
):
1017
24
.
[PubMed]
1748-6815
7.
Bertozzi
N
,
Pesce
M
,
Santi
P
,
Raposio
E
.
One-Stage Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Concise Review
.
BioMed Res Int
.
2017
;
2017
:
6486859
.
[PubMed]
2314-6133
8.
Agusti
A
,
Ward
A
,
Montgomery
C
,
Mohammed
K
,
Gui
GP
.
Aesthetic and oncologic outcomes after one-stage immediate breast reconstruction using a permanent biodimensional expandable implant
.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
.
2016
Feb
;
69
(
2
):
211
20
.
[PubMed]
1748-6815
9.
Nahabedian
MY
.
Breast reconstruction: a review and rationale for patient selection
.
Plast Reconstr Surg
.
2009
Jul
;
124
(
1
):
55
62
.
[PubMed]
0032-1052
10.
Chen
CM
,
Disa
JJ
,
Sacchini
V
,
Pusic
AL
,
Mehrara
BJ
,
Garcia-Etienne
CA
, et al.
Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction
.
Plast Reconstr Surg
.
2009
Dec
;
124
(
6
):
1772
80
.
[PubMed]
0032-1052
11.
Cordeiro
PG
,
McCarthy
CM
. A Single Surgeon’s 12-Year Experience with Tissue Expander/Implant Breast Reconstruction: Part II. An Analysis of Long-Term Complications, Aesthetic Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
2006
; Sept (15),118(4): 832-839.
12.
Casella
D
,
Di Taranto
G
,
Marcasciano
M
,
Sordi
S
,
Kothari
A
,
Kovacs
T
, et al.
Nipple-sparing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with TiLoop® Bra mesh in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: A prospective study of long-term and patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q
.
Breast
.
2018
Jun
;
39
:
8
13
.
[PubMed]
0960-9776
13.
Ramon
Y
,
Ullmann
Y
,
Moscona
R
,
Ofiram
E
,
Tamir
A
,
Har-Shai
Y
, et al.
Aesthetic results and patient satisfaction with immediate breast reconstruction using tissue expansion: a follow-up study
.
Plast Reconstr Surg
.
1997
Mar
;
99
(
3
):
686
91
.
[PubMed]
0032-1052
14.
Cavalcante
FP
,
Lima
MV
.
Nipple-sparing mastectomy with periareolar incision and two-stage reconstruction: initial analysis of 31 cases
.
Breast J
.
2018
Nov
;
24
(
6
):
940
3
.
[PubMed]
1075-122X
15.
Gschwantler-Kaulich
D
,
Leser
C
,
Salama
M
,
Singer
CF
.
Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction: higher complication rate vs cosmetic benefits
.
Breast J
.
2018
Nov
;
24
(
6
):
957
64
.
[PubMed]
1075-122X
16.
Didier
F
,
Radice
D
,
Gandini
S
,
Bedolis
R
,
Rotmensz
N
,
Maldifassi
A
, et al.
Does nipple preservation in mastectomy improve satisfaction with cosmetic results, psychological adjustment, body image and sexuality?
Breast Cancer Res Treat
.
2009
Dec
;
118
(
3
):
623
33
.
[PubMed]
0167-6806
17.
Yalanis
GC
,
Nag
S
,
Georgek
JR
,
Cooney
CM
,
Manahan
MA
,
Rosson
GD
, et al.
Mastectomy weight and tissue expander volume predict necrosis and increased costs associated with breast reconstruction
.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
.
2015
Aug
;
3
(
7
):
e450
.
[PubMed]
2169-7574
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.