Subareolar Sealant Reduces Minor Complications and Surgery for Necrosis in Prosthetic Reconstruction after Nipple-sparing Mastectomy

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is aesthetically superior to skin-sparing only mastectomy or reconstructed nipples. However, nipple-sparing mastectomy partially preserves nipple ducts, which are remaining communications between the environment and breast pocket that can potentially allow bacteria transfer and compromise the prosthesis. Previous methods to create a subareolar "barrier" to reduce through-duct bacteria penetration involve subpectoral implant placement, adjunct meshes or acellular dermal matrix, and external nipple adhesives. To further protect the implant from nipple-derived contamination, we propose subareolar sealant (SAS). SAS involves the application of a synthetic sealant on the nipple undersurface before implant placement. In our study, we analyzed 77 breasts that received prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction. SAS was used in 70 of 77 breasts. All breasts received adjunctive acellular dermal matrix. Comparing SAS versus no-SAS, we found that no-SAS was associated with 10.4-fold more infections (<i>P</i> = 0.032) and 17.3-fold more re-hospitalizations (<i>P</i> = 0.017). No-SAS also resulted in more "at least one major complication" (<i>P</i> < 0.001), capsular contracture (<i>P</i> < 0.001), and necrosis requiring surgery (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Due to the small no-SAS sample size, goodness-of-fit (Quasi-likelihood independence model) criteria was applied, and a post hoc power analysis was calculated. Erythema, all minor complications, dehiscence, and necrosis requiring surgery remained significant (all <i>P</i> < 0.0001). This innovative technique markedly reduces overall minor complications and necrosis requiring surgery. A larger no-SAS sample size is required to adequately determine whether SAS reduces infection and hospitalization rates. Nonetheless, SAS reduces complications and is cost effective compared with other adjunct materials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Published
2024-08-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000005820
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.57
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Subareolar Sealant Reduces Minor Complications and Surgery for Necrosis in Prosthetic Reconstruction after Nipple-sparing Mastectomy

Nicholas Wesely, Elizabeth E. Bushong, Cuyler Huffman, Ewa Komorowska‐Timek
1 citations
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
0.57
article

Subareolar Sealant Reduces Minor Complications and Surgery for Necrosis in Prosthetic Reconstruction after Nipple-sparing Mastectomy

Nicholas Wesely, Elizabeth E. Bushong, Cuyler Huffman, Ewa Komorowska‐Timek
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is aesthetically superior to skin-sparing only mastectomy or reconstructed nipples. However, nipple-sparing mastectomy partially preserves nipple ducts, which are remaining communications between the environment and breast pocket that can potentially allow bacteria transfer and compromise the prosthesis. Previous methods to create a subareolar "barrier" to reduce through-duct bacteria penetration involve subpectoral implant placement, adjunct meshes or acellular dermal matrix, and external nipple adhesives. To further protect the implant from nipple-derived contamination, we propose subareolar sealant (SAS). SAS involves the application of a synthetic sealant on the nipple undersurface before implant placement. In our study, we analyzed 77 breasts that received prepectoral prosthetic breast reconstruction. SAS was used in 70 of 77 breasts. All breasts received adjunctive acellular dermal matrix. Comparing SAS versus no-SAS, we found that no-SAS was associated with 10.4-fold more infections (<i>P</i> = 0.032) and 17.3-fold more re-hospitalizations (<i>P</i> = 0.017). No-SAS also resulted in more "at least one major complication" (<i>P</i> < 0.001), capsular contracture (<i>P</i> < 0.001), and necrosis requiring surgery (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Due to the small no-SAS sample size, goodness-of-fit (Quasi-likelihood independence model) criteria was applied, and a post hoc power analysis was calculated. Erythema, all minor complications, dehiscence, and necrosis requiring surgery remained significant (all <i>P</i> < 0.0001). This innovative technique markedly reduces overall minor complications and necrosis requiring surgery. A larger no-SAS sample size is required to adequately determine whether SAS reduces infection and hospitalization rates. Nonetheless, SAS reduces complications and is cost effective compared with other adjunct materials.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenVol. 12(8)
Grand Rapids Community College (US), Cornerstone University (US), Acton Institute (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
0.57
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.