Chronological Changes in Breast and Nipple Position After Autologous Reconstruction in an Asian Population

Abstract

Background

The breast shape changes between reconstructed and native breasts in autologous reconstruction, which is important to achieve symmetry. This study was conducted to clarify chronological changes in the shape and nipple position of the reconstructed breast compared with the contralateral breast in the Asian population.

Methods

Photographic assessments were conducted at baseline and during annual visits of patients who underwent immediate free flap breast reconstruction following unilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy at our institution between June 2017 and December 2019. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the change in shape and nipple position. This observation was most marked at 1-year postsurgery.

Results

Among the 170 patients (mean age, 48.04 ± 7.55 years), 164 (96.47%) had a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and 8 (4.71%) required further surgery on the contralateral breast for correction of asymmetry. The chronological changes in the breast shape and nipple position significantly differed between the native and the reconstructed breast, with the latter showing a higher degree of retraction. Grading of breast ptosis (grades 0–2) and exposure to radiotherapy were associated with an increased degree of retraction.

Conclusion

Retraction may occur after free flap breast reconstruction, particularly in patients with ptosis or those receiving radiotherapy. These findings support careful planning, including volume adjustment and contralateral procedures. While based on an Asian population, the results may inform surgical decisions in similar patient groups.

Keywords

autologous breast reconstruction - DIEP - breast retraction - breast ptosis - contralateral symmetry procedure - nipple position

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. Mai 2025

Angenommen: 12. Mai 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
21. Mai 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
20. Juni 2025

• References

• 1 Khoo A, Kroll SS, Reece GP. et al. A comparison of resource costs of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101 (04) 964-968 , discussion 969–970
• 2 Al-Ghazal SK, Sully L, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. The psychological impact of immediate rather than delayed breast reconstruction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000; 26 (01) 17-19
• 3 D'Souza N, Darmanin G, Fedorowicz Z. Immediate versus delayed reconstruction following surgery for breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 2011 (07) CD008674
• 4 Howes BH, Watson DI, Xu C, Fosh B, Canepa M, Dean NR. Quality of life following total mastectomy with and without reconstruction versus breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: a case-controlled cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (09) 1184-1191
• 5 Ng SK, Hare RM, Kuang RJ, Smith KM, Brown BJ, Hunter-Smith DJ. Breast reconstruction post mastectomy: patient satisfaction and decision making. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (06) 640-644
• 6 Filip CI, Jecan CR, Raducu L, Neagu TP, Florescu IP. Immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction for postmastectomy patients. Controversies and solutions. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2017; 112 (04) 378-386
• 7 Yoon AP, Qi J, Brown DL. et al. Outcomes of immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction: results of a multicenter prospective study. Breast 2018; 37: 72-79
• 8 Prantl L, Moellhoff N, von Fritschen U. et al. Immediate versus secondary DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter outcome study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020; 302 (06) 1451-1459
• 9 Yueh JH, Houlihan MJ, Slavin SA, Lee BT, Pories SE, Morris DJ. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: evaluation of patient satisfaction, aesthetic results, and sensation. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62 (05) 586-590
• 10 Moyer HR, Ghazi B, Daniel JR, Gasgarth R, Carlson GW. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: technical aspects and aesthetic outcomes. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (05) 446-450
• 11 Pittman TA, Abbate OA, Economides JM. The P1 method: prepectoral breast reconstruction to minimize the palpable implant edge and upper pole rippling. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (05) 487-492
• 12 Choi M, Frey JD. Optimizing aesthetic outcomes in breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (Suppl. 02) S13-S21
• 13 Han WY, Han SJ, Eom JS, Kim EK, Han HH. A comparative study of wrap-around versus anterior coverage placement of acellular dermal matrix in prepectoral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 10: 1097
• 14 Koshima I, Soeda S. Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. Br J Plast Surg 1989; 42 (06) 645-648
• 15 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (01) 32-38
• 16 Blondeel PN. One hundred free DIEP flap breast reconstructions: a personal experience. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52 (02) 104-111
• 17 Duncan AM, Al Youha S, Joukhadar N, Konder R, Stecco C, Wheelock ME. Anatomy of the breast fascial system: a systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149 (01) 28-40
• 18 Han HH, Kang MK, Choe J. et al. Estimation of contralateral perfusion in the DIEP flap by scoring the midline-crossing vessels in computed tomographic angiography. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (04) 697e-705e
• 19 Min K, Oh SM, Kim EK, Eom JS, Han HH. Analysis of perfusion in the DIEP flap: role of the location of the perforator, umbilicus, and midline crossing-over vessel. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 151 (06) 1146-1155
• 20 Jeong WS, Han W, Eom JS. Comparison of aesthetic outcomes between vertical and horizontal flap insets in breast reconstruction with the TRAM or DIEP flaps. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41 (01) 19-25
• 21 Reporting BI. Data System atlas (BI-RADS atlas). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003: 98
• 22 Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 1976; 3 (02) 193-203
• 23 Han HH, Choi JM, Eom JS. Objective photographic assessments and comparisons of immediate bilateral breast reconstruction using deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps and implants. Arch Plast Surg 2021; 48 (05) 473-482
• 24 Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH. Applied Longitudinal Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2012
• 25 Enoch S, Leaper DJ. Basic science of wound healing. Surgery (Oxf) 2005; 23 (02) 37-42
• 26 Hsu A, Mustoe TA. The principles of wound healing. Plastic Surgery Secrets Plus 2010; 2: 3-7
• 27 Gonzalez ACdO, Costa TF, Andrade ZdA, Medrado ARAP. Wound healing-a literature review. An Bras Dermatol 2016; 91: 614-620
• 28 Visha M, Karunagaran M. A review on wound healing. International Journal of Clinicopathological Correlation. 2019; 3 (02) 50-59
• 29 DiBernardo BE. Randomized, blinded split abdomen study evaluating skin shrinkage and skin tightening in laser-assisted liposuction versus liposuction control. Aesthet Surg J 2010; 30 (04) 593-602