Dataset Information

Prospective pilot study protocol evaluating the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM)

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) can be performed for the treatment of breast cancer and risk reduction, but total mammary glandular excision in NSM can be technically challenging. Minimally invasive robot-assisted NSM (RNSM) has the potential to improve the ergonomic challenges of open NSM. Recent studies in RNSM demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the procedure, but this technique is still novel in the USA.

Methods and analysis

This is a single-arm prospective pilot study to determine the safety, efficacy and potential risks of RNSM. Up to 12 RNSM will be performed to assess the safety and feasibility of the procedure. Routine follow-up visits and study assessments will occur at 14 days, 30 days, 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months. The primary outcome is to assess the feasibility of removing the breast gland en bloc using the RNSM technique. To assess safety, postoperative complication information will be collected. Secondary outcomes include defining benefits and challenges of RNSM for both surgeons and patients using surveys, as well as defining the breast and nipple-areolar complex sensation recovery following RNSM. Mainly, descriptive analysis will be used to report the findings.

Ethics and dissemination

The RNSM protocol was reviewed and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration using the Investigational Device Exemption mechanism (reference number G200096). In addition, the protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04537312) and approved by The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board, reference number 2020C0094 (18 August 2020). The results of this study will be distributed through peer-reviewed journals and presented at surgical conferences.

Trial registration number

NCT04537312.

SUBMITTER: Park K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8593753 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNipple-sparing mastectomy offers several advantages for women seeking postmastectomy breast reconstruction, but compromised skin and nipple perfusion may lead to skin and nipple necrosis. It is unclear whether the incisional approach contributes to these complications; therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the impact of incision type on outcomes in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic breast reconstruction through an inframammary fold versus a lateral radial incision. Skin and nipple perfusion as represented by fluorescence intensity, mammometric parameters, patient-reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared for the two cohorts, and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to evaluate the effects of covariates on outcomes.ResultsSeventy-nine patients were studied: 55 in the inframammary fold cohort and 24 in the lateral radial cohort. The inframammary fold group had significantly less fluorescence intensity to the inferior (21.9 percent versus 36.9 percent; p = 0.001) and lateral portions of breast skin (23.1 percent versus 40.7 percent; p = 0.003) after reconstruction. Decreased fluorescence intensity was associated with smoking, decreased mean arterial pressure, and greater specimen weight. Postreconstruction breast volumes were increased over preoperative volumes in the inframammary fold group (38.3 percent) versus the lateral radial (31.2 percent) group; however, patients with a lateral radial incision had a greater increase in satisfaction with their breasts and psychosocial well-being.ConclusionsThere are significant differences in patient-reported outcomes and final breast volumes based on the incisional approach to nipple-sparing mastectomy. These data can be used to guide providers and counsel patients considering nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthetic reconstruction.Clinical question/level of evidenceTherapeutic, II.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough video-assisted breast surgery is gaining popularity, endoscopic reconstruction after mastectomy is still facing lots of problems, bring about that endoscopic method has not yet become a standard procedure for breast cancer reconstruction. Here, we introduce a novel surgical technique of video-assisted transaxillary nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction and describe the detailed surgical procedure using this technique.MethodsDetailed steps of surgical procedure, the patient characteristics and the mean operative time of this new technique were described in this article. All patients were asked to score their satisfaction with their reconstructed breasts preoperatively, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months postoperatively using the BREAST-Q.ResultsAt first, we used our "conventional method" and performed on 10 patients from April 2017 to June 2020; the operative time was 324.80 ± 66.39 minutes. After improving several procedures of the technique, the "optimized method" was performed on 14 cases from July 2020 to November 2020; the operative time decreased to 193.71 ± 28.75 minutes with shortest was 133 minutes; the optimized method was novel and easy to learn and be generalized. Most of the patients were satisfied with the reconstruction results. There was no significant difference between preoperative scores and scores at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months (p = 0.364). Since there is no wound on the breast dome, no obvious postoperative complications were observed except for one patient presented with infection.ConclusionsThis new technique has allowed surgeons to achieve excellent and reproducible outcomes in a single-stage procedure and represents an excellent technique for patients who wish to have a scarless and aesthetically pleasing appearance after mastectomy for breast cancer. This article also highlights the mean operative time (193.71 ± 28.75 minutes) that has been made possible with this new technique.Level of evidence vThis journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266 .