Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37(05): 458-464
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719049
Original Article

A Comparative Analysis of Outcomes of Free Nipple Areolar Grafting in Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Katie G. Egan 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
,
Eric Lai
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
,
Julie Holding
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
,
James A. Butterworth
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Preserving the nipple areolar complex (NAC) increases satisfaction in breast reconstruction. This study aims to describe outcomes using free NAC grafts in microvascular breast reconstruction.

Methods A case–control study evaluated prospective outcomes of microvascular breast reconstruction with free NAC grafts compared with matched controls with tattoo or local flap nipple reconstruction. Eligible patients for NAC grafting required correction of ptosis or nipple malposition. Postoperative photographs were rated for complications and aesthetics by the four study authors and two additional unbiased board-certified plastic surgeons. Satisfaction was measured with the BREAST-Q.

Results Twenty patients who underwent 35 autologous breast reconstructions were analyzed. Nipple areolar reconstruction with grafts was completed with 13 NACs in 7 patients. The majority of free NAC grafts (11/13, 85%) were completed in immediate reconstruction, and 15% (2/13) were completed in delayed reconstruction. Partial graft hypopigmentation (mean 18.0%, standard deviation [SD] 7.5) was noted in all grafts. Less than half of grafts had areas of depigmentation (6/13, mean 6.1%, SD 7.5). Minor areas of partial loss occurred in 6/13 grafts (mean 2.9%, SD 4.6). Nipple projection was maintained in 54% of nipples (7/13). Depigmentation, hypopigmentation, graft loss, and projection were not statistically correlated with NAC aesthetic or overall aesthetic rating. However, NAC size (p = 0.003), position (p = 0.022), and symmetry (p = 0.028) were all correlated with aesthetic outcomes. Outcomes and satisfaction were similar to those seen with local flap reconstruction, although partial loss was less common in NAC grafts.

Conclusion Nipple reconstruction can successfully be performed in microvascular breast reconstruction using free grafts. Although partial graft hypopigmentation is common, smaller areas of graft loss or depigmentation are anticipated and do not affect aesthetic outcomes. The use of free NAC grafts may allow additional patients to use their own nipples as part of their microvascular reconstruction and avoid secondary NAC reconstruction procedures.

Keywords

nipple areolar complex - free nipple graft - autologous breast reconstruction - microvascular reconstruction - nipples - reconstructive aesthetics


Publication History

Received: 16 June 2020

Accepted: 19 September 2020

Article published online:
31 October 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Jabor MA, Shayani P, Collins Jr DR, Karas T, Cohen BE. Nipple-areola reconstruction: satisfaction and clinical determinants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (02) 457-463 , discussion 464–465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Romanoff A, Zabor EC, Stempel M, Sacchini V, Pusic A, Morrow M. A comparison of patient-reported outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional mastectomy with reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25 (10) 2909-2916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wei CH, Scott AM, Price AN. et al. Psychosocial and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J 2016; 22 (01) 10-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA. et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (02) 219-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Satteson ES, Brown BJ, Nahabedian MY. Nipple-areolar complex reconstruction and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gland Surg 2017; 6 (01) 4-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Colen SR. Breast reduction with use of the free nipple graft technique. Aesthet Surg J 2001; 21 (03) 261-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Adams WM. Free composite grafts of the nipples in mammaryplasty. South Surg 1947; 13 (10) 715-733
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Agarwal CA, Wall VT, Mehta ST, Donato DP, Walzer NK. Creation of an aesthetic male nipple areolar complex in female-to-male transgender chest reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41 (06) 1305-1310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rietjens M, De Lorenzi F, Andrea M. et al. Free nipple graft technique to correct nipple and areola malposition after breast procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013; 1 (08) e69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cho JW, Yoon ES, You HJ, Kim HS, Lee BI, Park SH. Nipple-areola complex necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42 (05) 601-607
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Colwell AS, Tessler O, Lin AM. et al. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: predictors of complications, reconstruction outcomes, and 5-year trends. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (03) 496-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Emekli U, Guven E, Ozden B, Nur Kesim S. A practical dressing method after nipple–areola reconstruction: the syringe stent. Eur J Plast Surg 2004; 27: 99-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Collins B, Williams JZ, Karu H, Hodde JP, Martin VA, Gurtner GC. Nipple reconstruction with the biodesign nipple reconstruction cylinder: a prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4 (08) e832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fuzesi S, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Atisha D, Pusic AL. Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the army of women study. Breast 2017; 33: 44-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (02) 293-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Cano SJ. Use of the BREAST-Q in clinical outcomes research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (01) 166e-167e , author reply 167e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (02) 345-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. Breast cancer and reconstruction: normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (05) 1046e-1055e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar