Autologous Breast Reconstruction Skin Paddle Designs: Classification and Aesthetic Outcomes
22 October 2018
18 March 2019
14 May 2019 (online)
Objective Present study was conducted to identify common mastectomy patterns and autologous skin paddle designs, to identify patient characteristics that influence these patterns, and assess aesthetic outcomes associated with each pattern.
Methods Autologous breast reconstructions over 5 years were reviewed. Mastectomy type and resultant skin paddle were categorized into four mastectomy type/skin paddle design groups based on the amount of native “Skin Spared” after mastectomy and the resultant flap skin paddle designed. Groups were designated as skin-sparing mastectomy 1 (SS1)/large elliptical skin paddle, skin-sparing mastectomy 2 (SS2)/small elliptical skin paddle, skin-sparing mastectomy 3 (SS3)/areola skin paddle, and skin-sparing mastectomy 4 (nipple-sparing mastectomy, SS4)/no skin paddle. Surveys were performed to validate the classification system and critique aesthetic outcomes.
Results A total of 89 autologous breast reconstructions were included. Radiotherapy was used in 45.6% of SS1 patients versus 29.2% in SS2 and 12.5% in SS3/SS4. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 in SS1/SS2 and 26 in SS3/SS4 mastectomy types (p = 0.045). Delayed reconstruction was performed in 96.5% SS1 versus 62.5% in SS2 and only 25% of SS3/SS4 (p < 0.0001). Physicians and Non-MD personnel correctly categorized 85.8 and 76.1% of skin paddle designs, respectively. Over 75% of those surveyed rated the reconstruction aesthetic outcome as “good-excellent” regardless of the pattern group.
Conclusions Patients in SS1/SS2 groups had a higher incidence of radiotherapy, delayed reconstruction, and higher BMI compared with the SS3/SS4 groups. The classification system is recognizable and may provide improved patient education and communication between healthcare providers. All mastectomy type/skin paddle designs received high aesthetic ratings.
- 1 Eltahir Y, Werners LL, Dreise MM. , et al. Quality-of-life outcomes between mastectomy alone and breast reconstruction: comparison of patient-reported BREAST-Q and other health-related quality-of-life measures. . Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (02) 201e-209e
- 2 Sisco M, Johnson DB, Wang C, Rasinski K, Rundell VL, Yao KA. The quality-of-life benefits of breast reconstruction do not diminish with age. . J Surg Oncol 2015; 111 (06) 663-668
- 3 Tsoi B, Ziolkowski NI, Thoma A, Campbell K, O'Reilly D, Goeree R. Safety of tissue expander/implant versus autologous abdominal tissue breast reconstruction in postmastectomy breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. . Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (02) 234-249
- 4 Schmauss D, Machens HG, Harder Y. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy. . Front Surg 2016; 2: 71
- 5 Ramos-Gallardo G, Cuenca-Pardo J, Rodríguez-Olivares E. , et al. Breast implant and anaplastic large cell lymphoma meta-analysis. . J Invest Surg 2017; 30 (01) 56-65
- 6 Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR. , et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases. . Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (03) 695-705
- 7 Nahabedian MY. Achieving ideal breast aesthetics with autologous reconstruction. . Gland Surg 2015; 4 (02) 134-144
- 8 Oni G, Saint-Cyr M, Maia M, Colohan S, Rohrich RJ. Secondary techniques in breast reconstruction refinement: the periareolar advancement flap. . Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (05) 1015-1024
- 9 Dayicioglu D, Tugertimur B, Zemina K. , et al. Vertical mastectomy incision in implant breast reconstruction after skin sparing mastectomy: advantages and outcomes. . Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (Suppl . (Suppl. 04) S290-S294
- 10 Tan BK, Chim H, Ng ZY, Ong KW. Aesthetic design of skin-sparing mastectomy incisions for immediate autologous tissue breast reconstruction in asian women. . Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41 (04) 366-373
- 11 Bourne DA, Ahuja N, Gimbel ML. Analysis of the vertical mammaplasty design in skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate autologous reconstruction. . J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (01) 23-29
- 12 Tesselaar E, Flejmer AM, Farnebo S, Dasu A. Changes in skin microcirculation during radiation therapy for breast cancer. . Acta Oncol 2017; 56 (08) 1072-1080
- 13 Stone HB, Coleman CN, Anscher MS, McBride WH. Effects of radiation on normal tissue: consequences and mechanisms. . Lancet Oncol 2003; 4 (09) 529-536
- 14 Pestana IA, Campbell DC, Bharti G, Thompson JT. Factors affecting complications in radiated breast reconstruction. . Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70 (05) 542-545
- 15 Kronowitz SJ. Current status of autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. . Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (02) 282-292
- 16 Javaid M, Song F, Leinster S, Dickson MG, James NK. Radiation effects on the cosmetic outcomes of immediate and delayed autologous breast reconstruction: an argument about timing. . J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59 (01) 16-26
- 17 D'Souza N, Darmanin G, Fedorowicz Z. Immediate versus delayed reconstruction following surgery for breast cancer. . Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; ;( (07) CD008674
- 18 Frey JD, Choi M, Salibian AA, Karp NS. Comparison of outcomes with tissue expander, immediate implant, and autologous breast reconstruction in greater than 1000 nipple-sparing mastectomies. . Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (06) 1300-1310