• 1. Department of General Surgery, The Fourth People’s Hospital of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610016, P. R. China;
  • 2. Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
  • 3. Breast Disease Research Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
ZHANG Donglin, Email: zoomail@126.com; DU Zhenggui, Email: docduzg@163.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objective To 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 “endoscopic group”) and traditional open surgery of latissimus dorsi muscle flap harvesting for breast reconstruction after mastectomy (abbreviation as the “traditional open group”). Methods The patients were collected, who underwent latissimus dorsi breast 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 an endoscopic group and a traditional open group according to the surgical method. Their basic information, information relevant operation, postoperative complications, and patient reported outcomes (BREAST-Q scale) score were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 73 patients were collected, including 23 patients in the endoscopic group and 50 patients in the traditional open group. There were no statistically significant differences in the age, body mass index, breast sagging, tumor location, tumor N stage, pathological type, adjuvant therapy, etc. between the patients of two groups, except for a higher proportion of T4 stage patients in the open group as compared to the endoscopic group (P<0.001). 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 patients of two groups (P>0.05). The most common complication in the patients of both groups was back seroma, 21.7% (5/23) in the endoscopic group and 22.0% (11/50) in the traditional open group. The total length of incisions in the endoscopic group was significantly shorter than that in the traditional open group (P<0.001), and the points of the breast satisfaction (P=0.045), back satisfaction (P<0.001), and sexual well-being (P=0.028) of the patients in the endoscopic group were significantly higher than those in the traditional 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). During the follow-up period, 3 (6.0%) patients had distant metastasis (all were lung metastasis) in the traditional open group, and there was no local or regional recurrence, distant metastasis, and specific death of breast cancer in the endoscopic group. Conclusions The 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 surgery of latissimusdorsi flap harvesting for breast reconstruction is 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.

Copyright © the editorial department of CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved