Robotic versus conventional nipple sparing mastectomy

Robotic versus conventional nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate gel implant breast reconstruction in the management of breast cancer- A case control comparison study with analysis of clinical outcome, medical cost, and patient-reported cosmetic results.:



Publication date: Available online 18 February 2020

Source: Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

Author(s): Hung-Wen Lai, Shou-Tung Chen, Chi Wei Mok, Ying-Jen Lin, Hwa-Koon Wu, Shih-Lung Lin, Dar-Ren Chen, Shou-Jen Kuo

Synopsis

: Robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) and immediate gel implant breast reconstruction (IGBR) in the management of breast cancer had comparable clinical outcome with conventional nipple sparing mastectomy (C-NSM) and IGBR. R-NSM was associated with favorable patients’ satisfaction of aesthetic outcome, however, at the price of longer operation time and more medical expanse if compared with C-NSM.

Background

: Robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM), which uses the da Vinci surgical platform, could perform NSM and immediate breast reconstruction through small and inconspicuous extra-mammary axillary or lateral chest incision. R-NSM was reported with extremely low nipple areolar complex (NAC) necrosis rate, good cosmetic results, and high patient's satisfaction. However, there was rare evidence available comparing the effectiveness and safety of R-NSM with conventional NSM (C-NSM) in the management of breast cancer.

Methods

: A case control comparison study was conducted for patients with breast cancer underwent R-NSM or C-NSM with immediate gel implant breast reconstruction (IGBR) from July 2011 to September 2019 at a single institution to compare the clinical outcomes, patient-reported aesthetic results, and medical cost.

Results

: According to study design, 54 procedures of R-NSM were compared with 62 procedures of C-NSM in the surgical management of breast cancer combined with IGBR. Compared with C-NSM, R-NSM was associated with higher overall satisfaction (92% excellent and 8% good versus 75.6% excellent and 24.4% good, P=0.046), and wound/scar related outcome in patients’ reported aesthetic results. The NAC ischemia/necrosis risk, overall complication rate, and blood loss were not significantly different between R-NSM and C-NSM groups. However, longer operation time, and higher overall medical cost (10,877 ± 796 versus 5,702 ± 661 US Dollars, P<0.01) was observed in R-NSM group.

Conclusion

: Compared with C-NSM, R-NSM showed comparable clinical outcomes, and favorable patients’ satisfaction of aesthetic results but at the price of longer operation time and higher cost.