INTRODUCTION
The first description of the attempt to repair the mastectomy area with a latissimus
dorsi myocutaneous flap dates back to the end of the 19th century, carried out by Tanzini in 19061. After 19812, the aggressiveness of the treatment of breast tumors was reduced, preserving muscles,
skin, sometimes the nipple-areolar complex (NAC), and part of the gland. It was reconstructed
after quadrantectomy and radiotherapy intraoperatively or later.
After 1991, skin-sparing mastectomies, and sometimes NAC, in cases without lymph node
metastasis that did not require radiotherapy, received immediate repair and incision
changes3. With the improvement of implants, they became an option in the arsenal of tactics.
They allow for less surgical time, quick recovery, lower hospital costs, and patient
acceptance.
The symmetry is not adequate in a breast receiving an implant, and the contralateral
breast corrected with its own tissues. Moreover, there is a description of an incidence
of 7.3% of occult ductal carcinoma and 4.6% of lobular carcinoma “in situ” in this
breast4 and a cumulative risk of appearance of 0.5 to 1% each year of life5. In the presence of BRCA1/2 and a family history of breast cancer6, contralateral subcutaneous mastectomy (risk reduction) may be indicated, repairing
it with an implant. The permanence of this breast, risk reduction7, and better symmetry and aesthetics are the patient’s decision8,9.
Post-mastectomy repair has intercurrences, under any approach, occurring even in experienced
hands (34.64%)10. Removing tissues close to the NAC, either by necessity or prevention, reduces periareolar
vascularization, with eventual necrosis.
If the skin and subcutaneous coverage are less than 1.5/2.0cm thick, inserting the
implant in the supramuscular plane is not ideal. It is recommended to place it under
the pectoral muscle and serratus anterior, but the projection of the reconstructed
breast is reduced by muscle pressure. Furthermore, implant displacement in the cranial
direction may occur, causing discomfort during muscle contraction or lateral-inferior
displacement.
Moreover, breast emptying causes reduced sensitivity.
OBJECTIVE
The objective is to describe tactics as an attempt to reduce the incidence of areolar
necrosis, improve breast projection with submuscular implants, subjectively analyze
the recovery of tactile breast sensitivity and objectively the painful one, and facilitate
symmetrization.
METHOD
This is a retrospective study of cases with an analysis of medical records.
Those referring to unilateral mastectomy were excluded, including expanders and subsequent
repair, late reconstructions, immediate or late reconstructions with flaps, secondary
repairs, and hygienic mastectomies.
With the patient standing, mark the breast lines that form the quadrilateral where
the implant’s base will be located (Figure 1A)11. The mastectomy is performed with a transverse incision from the lateral border of
the areola to the axillary region, taking advantage of it to detect and remove the
sentinel node or axillary dissection (Figure 1B).
Figure 1 - A: Marking the quadrilateral where the implant will be located between the vertical
and horizontal mammary lines HHBL-HLBL-VMBL-VLBL, the meridian, and point A. B: Lateral incision for exploration of the sentinel node and skin-sparing mastectomy
completed.
Figure 1 - A: Marking the quadrilateral where the implant will be located between the vertical
and horizontal mammary lines HHBL-HLBL-VMBL-VLBL, the meridian, and point A. B: Lateral incision for exploration of the sentinel node and skin-sparing mastectomy
completed.
In the detachment of the glandular tissue, the thickness of the skin and subcutaneous
tissue must be homogeneous and decreasing, from the base of the breast to the papilla,
without prejudice to the oncological treatment. If there is breast ptosis, the incision
is curved with caudal concavity.
After oncological procedures, with no lymph node emptying, the pectoralis major muscle
is divulsed obliquely in the direction of the fibers in half its width (Figure 1C), gently detaching it with the index finger. In the inferior caudal and medial direction,
an electric scalpel is used, going beyond the submammary fold (HLBL) by 2 centimeters,
elevating along the anterior aponeurosis of the rectus abdominis muscle, making three
vertical incisions in it, loosening its constriction.
Upwards, it is shifted up to 1.5cm below the superior horizontal mammary line and
paramedially to the medial vertical mammary line 1.5cm from the mid-external line11, similarly to what is used in breast augmentation by some authors12,13,14. Laterally, the entire pectoral muscle is detached until the aponeurosis of the serratus
anterior muscle is found. Ahead, it is detached, including muscle fibers, added to
the loose subcutaneous tissue over the delicate aponeurosis, together up to the vertical
lateral breast line (VLBL)11, sufficient to obtain the lateral and inferior contour of the pocket and accommodate
the implant (Figure 2A).
Figure 2 - A: Store where the implant will be placed with the lateral region composed of subcutaneous
cellular tissue and some serratus muscle fibers seen by transillumination. B: Implant positioned and smooth closure of the pectoralis major muscle at the lateral/superior
pole. C: Scheme provided by Leandro Debs12, slightly modified, of the implant positioned in
his pocket.
Figure 2 - A: Store where the implant will be placed with the lateral region composed of subcutaneous
cellular tissue and some serratus muscle fibers seen by transillumination. B: Implant positioned and smooth closure of the pectoralis major muscle at the lateral/superior
pole. C: Scheme provided by Leandro Debs12, slightly modified, of the implant positioned in
his pocket.
This is lodged between the two strands of the pectoral muscle. In its outline, the
implant is covered by the muscle, and in the center, it is free to protrude and obtain
a better base/height ratio15 (Figure 2B). To prevent their retraction during healing, gentle traction stitches with absorbable
sutures are placed between the divulsed strands in the superolateral half over the
implant (Figures 2B and 2C).
If the pectoralis minor muscle has good extension and volume, the pectoralis major
is moved medially from its lateral border, and the minor one laterally to the vertical
lateral breast line (VLBL), reinforcing the superolateral part of the pocket (Figures 3A and 3B).
Figure 3 - A: Possibility of making the pocket by moving the pectoralis major muscle medially.
B: And the small pectoral to the side.
Figure 3 - A: Possibility of making the pocket by moving the pectoralis major muscle medially.
B: And the small pectoral to the side.
After introducing the implant, the lateral edge of the pectoralis major is sutured
to the medial edge of the pectoralis major.
The skin and subcutaneous tissue on the side of the thorax, detached from the breast
during the mastectomy, are fixed to it with separate absorbable sutures16,17.
Three options for final skin closure will be determined by the excess amount preoperatively.
First: A subdermal and skin suture is performed without initial ptosis (AM from 0
to 2cm). If the ptosis is small (AM of 3/4cm)11, the lower part of the flap is de-epithelialized and sutured to the lateral edge
of the pectoral muscle, reinforcing the superolateral coverage of the implant.
Second: With medium ptosis (AM of 4/5cm) and need to relocate or reduce the areolar
diameter, in addition to the procedure described in the first option, the excess in
the periareolar region is marked, the areola is de-epidermized and repositioned.
Third: With large ptosis (MA greater than 5cm)11, a transverse spindle is marked using a bidigital grip around and medially to the
areola. Its diameter is demarcated, and the de-epidermized area is the new areolar
site (Figures 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D).
Figure 4 - A: Marking of the periareolar de-epidermization spindle using a bidigital grip. B: De-epidermization of the area, keeping the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) vascularized.
C: Marking of the new areolar site. D: Completed sutures.
Figure 4 - A: Marking of the periareolar de-epidermization spindle using a bidigital grip. B: De-epidermization of the area, keeping the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) vascularized.
C: Marking of the new areolar site. D: Completed sutures.
The closure of de-epidermized areas should be performed with a few simple sutures
separated subdermal with absorbable threads, not strangling the circulation, allowing
areolar and periareolar irrigation. The dermis that folds under itself protects the
implant and gives the breast greater projection. The skin is sutured with separate
non-absorbable stitches, gentle traction, and constriction.
Vacuum drainage of the subcutaneous pocket is necessary until the daily volume drained
is less than 30 ml/24 hours. The end of the drain is placed in the axillary region
and extruded in the inferior medial pole (Figure 4D). The same procedure is performed on the contralateral breast for symmetrization
and risk reduction.
The initial bandage covers the incisions with insulating ointment, and the breast
is covered with a microporous tape bra, which remains and is retouched until the stitches
are removed, around 12 days (Figure 5A).
Figure 5 - A: Dressing and drainage in the 24-hour postoperative period. B: Bra plus a slightly compressive band used for 60 days.
Figure 5 - A: Dressing and drainage in the 24-hour postoperative period. B: Bra plus a slightly compressive band used for 60 days.
From the first day onwards, a delicate, seamless, slightly compresswive bra is applied
over it, plus a bandage that slightly compresses the implants in the caudal direction,
preventing their displacement upwards, until the formation of the fibrous capsule
in 2 months (Figure 5B).
RESULTS
One hundred six patients (212 breasts) were operated on in the same surgery as the
skin-preserving and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, using the tactics described,
from June 2009 to July 2019. The patients are from a private clinic and signed an
Informative Consent and Enlightening.
Figures 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, 6E and 6F; 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 7F; 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E and 8F; 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E and 9F are from patients who underwent surgery with good results.
Figure 6 - Pre- and postoperative of a patient without breast flaccidity or need to relocate
the nipple-areolar complex (NAC).
Figure 6 - Pre- and postoperative of a patient without breast flaccidity or need to relocate
the nipple-areolar complex (NAC).
Figure 7 - Pre and postoperative with slight relocation of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC).
Figure 7 - Pre and postoperative with slight relocation of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC).
Figure 8 - Pre and postoperative with medium flaccidity and relocation of the nipple-areolar
complex (NAC) and correction of ptosis stretching medially to the scar.
Figure 8 - Pre and postoperative with medium flaccidity and relocation of the nipple-areolar
complex (NAC) and correction of ptosis stretching medially to the scar.
Figure 9 - Pre and postoperatively with great flaccidity corrected and relocation of the nipple-areolar
complex (NAC).
Figure 9 - Pre and postoperatively with great flaccidity corrected and relocation of the nipple-areolar
complex (NAC).
Three patients had inflammatory signs and seroma after one month (Table 1). In two, the drained liquid was subjected to three cultures. Of these, the first
two were negative, and the third, in a different laboratory, detected S. epidermidis. The third patient had a positive result in the first culture. The implant was removed
and reoperated after four months in all three cases. The fibrotic tissue was removed,
and a new implant was inserted (Figures 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, and 10F). All of them presented late moderate capsular contracture.
Table 1 - Complications and inadequate results after procedures.
106 Patients - 212 Breasts |
Surface irregularity |
25 - 23.58% |
Seromas |
3 - 2.83% |
Post-trauma seroma |
1 - 0.94% |
S. Epidermidis infection |
3 - 2.83% |
Bruises |
1 - 0.94% |
Areolar necrosis |
1 - 0.94% |
Dehiscence of sutures |
2 - 1.88% |
Tall implants |
2 - 1.88% |
Contralateral breast tumor |
5 - 4.71% |
Complications and inadequate results |
35.82% of patients and 17.91% of breasts |
Table 1 - Complications and inadequate results after procedures.
Figure 10 - A and B: Patient with S. epidermidis infection. C and D: Implant removed. E and F: After 5 months, reimplant without prior expansion.
Figure 10 - A and B: Patient with S. epidermidis infection. C and D: Implant removed. E and F: After 5 months, reimplant without prior expansion.
One patient presented late seroma after three months due to trauma, drained for one
week, without vacuum, and use of anti-inflammatory drugs. The resolution was satisfactory.
One case of hematoma was treated clinically. Only one patient had marginal, partial
areolar necrosis in the lower half, with spontaneous healing. In this case, the lateral
incision contoured the areola inferiorly to the medial pole.
Two patients had skin suture dehiscence. In one, the de-epidermized area protected
the implant, and healing was spontaneous. On the other, the muscle was exposed and
was solved with an elastic bandage18,19 (Figures 11A, 11B, and 11C and Figures 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, 12E, and 12F).
Figure 11 - A: Area of necrosis at the edges of the suture. B: Debridement and elastic bandage. C: Resultant scarring.
Figure 11 - A: Area of necrosis at the edges of the suture. B: Debridement and elastic bandage. C: Resultant scarring.
Figure 12 - Pre and postoperative of the case in
Figure 11. The mastology team removed the nipple-areolar complex (NAC).
Figure 12 - Pre and postoperative of the case in
Figure 11. The mastology team removed the nipple-areolar complex (NAC).
The implant was positioned high 2 months postoperatively in two initial cases.
Surface irregularity was the most frequent bad result (25 cases).
The projection obtained was always similar to breasts in good shape.
Perfect symmetry depended on regularity in the “post-mastectomy flap” thickness, which
was more easily obtained when it was homogeneous bilaterally.
Tactile sensitivity was analyzed at 2/6 months, with the examiner and the patient
lightly sliding fingers over the breast. The painful one with the tip/cannon of the
needle pressing against the skin in the quadrants determines it hurts/does not hurt
without the patient’s vision. The partial or total return was constant and variable,
smaller and later the thinner the mastectomy skin remnant20.
DISCUSSION
Before puberty, the subcutaneous tissue over the breast buds is thickly homogeneous.
The hormonal stimulus depends on the serum level, the elastic quality of the skin,
and the number of buds. The breasts, as they grow, more or less distend the skin and
reduce the thickness of the subcutaneous tissue from its periphery in the thorax to
the NAC. This is the main cause of various breast shapes and volumes based on the
extent of the base and projection of the breast. Preserving it with decreasing thickness
is convenient, remaining vessels and nerves that form the superficial vascular and
nervous network up to the papilla essential to reduce circulatory deficiency and return
sensitivity.
The removed breast volume is measured and placed in a 2000ml graduated bottle containing
1000ml water. The added tissue collaborates with the choice of implant volume, disregarding
the axillaries removed in association with the mammary.
Based on the existing breast, the patient discusses the convenience and possible volume
in the preoperative period. The remaining skin, the thorax’s lateral and vertical
extension, and the major pectoralis muscle must be considered.
Ptosis measurement is not the only parameter that determines the extent of scarring;
the volume of the implant also.
After three cases of late infection by S. epidermidis, the skin was routinely re - sterilized, the pocket was washed with saline solution
after the mastectomy, and no further cases occurred.
Two patients, 2 months after the operation, had high implants, despite being well
positioned in the surgical act at the beginning of the use of the tactic. The approach
was modified using a transverse band on the upper mammary poles and relaxing incisions
on the aponeurosis of the rectus muscle.
In tumors close to the skin in quadrants other than the lateral ones, requiring resection,
the spindle was performed in the direction from the base of the breast to the areola.
In the axilla, a transverse incision was made in the same direction, obtaining the
sentinel node. Depending on the ptosis, the procedure joins the two incisions or not,
with de-epidermization.
When the areola was removed, the procedure was similar, and its repair was postponed
to another surgical procedure or tattoo. Alternatively, if there were excesses, immediately
redone with a graft from the contralateral areola; this breast always had a flatter
apex than the contralateral one, requiring posterior fat grafting.
It is convenient to carry different volumes of implants to decide which one will be
used during the reconstruction. Contralateral subcutaneous mastectomy, in general,
was more tissue conservative, and the volume used was often smaller.
The tactic described made it possible to eliminate total necrosis of the areola, even
if the periareolar region had minimal subcutaneous tissue after the mastectomy.
The transverse incisions provide good scars, and together with the preserved thickness
of the subcutaneous tissue, they recover partial or total breast sensitivity between
two months and two years20.
All 106 patients operated on using this technique received the procedure on the contralateral
side, aiming at symmetrization. This is not easy to obtain. Five patients had an undiagnosed
tumor in the contralateral breast.
In the postoperative period, the fear of mutilation due to the loss of the breast
is replaced by a feeling of relief and enthusiasm when obtaining breasts that are
many times more adequate than those before the surgery. This fact facilitates the
acceptance of chemotherapy with possible hair loss. Removal of the contralateral breast
also caused a feeling of relief.
Patient satisfaction with having performed the contralateral mastectomy ranges from
84 to 96%7,8, but it depends on the quality of the result obtained. These were better in patients
with small tumors and without the involvement of axillary nodes. It is then possible
to preserve the thicker and more homogeneous subcutaneous fatty tissue without removing
the areolas.
When there was a positive sentinel node, predicting possible radiotherapy, a skin
expander was included for breast repair and contralateral mastectomy after the end
of treatment. Nevertheless, the symmetrization results did not reach the same quality.
In the surface irregularities caused by the mastectomy, a second procedure was necessary
to perform correction with a fat graft, improving the results. Discussing the need
for a second surgical procedure in advance is convenient.
The tactic of leaving the pectoralis major muscle open, in addition to providing greater
projection of the breast, eliminates the discomfort of pressure due to muscle contraction.
And, in the long term, possible costal alterations.
Immediate reconstruction with implants became the authors’ best option. However, late
reconstructions with donor areas of adequate volume are the ones they prefer.
Considering 212 breasts operated on in 106 patients, the total incidence of complications
or unsatisfactory results was 17.91% of the breasts or 35.82% of the patients, the
most prevalent being surface irregularities.
CONCLUSION
Immediate breast reconstruction with transverse incision and implants in a mixed plane
after skin-preserving mastectomy and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy is another
possible option. It allows good projection, reduction of areolar necrosis, and partial
or total return of tactile/painful sensitivity, facilitating symmetrization.
1. Faculdade Estadual de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto, Divisão de Cirurgia Plástica,
São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil
Corresponding author: Antonio Roberto Bozola Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 5544, Vila São José, São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil.
Zip Code: 15090-000 E-mail: ceplastica@hotmail.com