Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction of the Large and Ptotic Breast: is Preshaping of the Challenging Breast a Key to Success?

Shangshan Li,Jie Luan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004226

2018-01-01

Abstract:Sir: We read with great interest the article entitled “Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction of the Large and Ptotic Breast: Is Preshaping of the Challenging Breast a Key to Success?” by Gunnarsson et al.1 in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The authors presented preshaping mastopexy/reduction followed by nipple-sparing mastectomy/direct-to-implant reconstruction with an excellent result. We appreciate the study and want to ask a few questions. Once the preshaping mastopexy was performed, there was inevitable cut in breast tissue and the breast tissue was no longer intact and possibly transferred to adjacent tissue. In addition, the surgical site was filled with scar tissue after mastopexy, which could affect the identification of breast tissue during the second-stage mastectomy. We would appreciate if the authors would share their experience of how to identify and completely resect the breast tissue in the second-stage mastectomy to prevent breast cancer. In this study, the two-stage operations were performed with no case of nipple necrosis. Although the dissection weight in nipple-sparing mastectomy was presented, the dissection weight in preshaping mastopexy/reduction was not presented, as the range of dissection was closely associated with vascularity of the nipple-areola complex. As further breast tissue dissection will be conducted in the second stage, we would appreciate if the authors would share the strategy regarding the range of resection in mastopexy/reduction. The new location of the nipple and areola is of great importance for the patients. A two-stage procedure means that the location of the nipple and areola also needs to change twice. Thus, during preoperative design of the new location of the nipple and areola in the first-stage mastopexy/reduction, the effect of second-stage mastectomy/direct-to-implant reconstruction of the location of the nipple and areola must be taken into consideration. It might have been better if the location strategy of the nipple and areola in the first-stage mastopexy/reduction was provided. In conclusion, the authors presented excellent outcomes following these procedures. The consideration of both oncologic and aesthetic outcome makes this two-stage procedure difficult to handle, and there are still only a few related studies. We expect further large-sample studies with more specific treatment strategies in the future. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to content of this communication. No funding was received for this work. Shangshan Li, M.D.Jie Luan, M.D.Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast SurgeryPlastic Surgery HospitalChinese Academy of Medical SciencesPeking Union Medical CollegeShijingshan District, Beijing, People’s Republic of China