Can we safely accommodate larger volume implants in inframammary fold nipple sparing mastectomy compared to nipple sacrificing mastectomy in implant-based reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix?

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to analyse if inframammary fold nipple sparing mastectomy (IMF NSM) could safely accommodate larger implants in relation to weight of the breast as opposed to nipple sacrificing mastectomy (NSacriM) in implant reconstruction with biological mesh. METHODS: A review of prospectively collected data of implant-based reconstruction using biological mesh between Nov 2016 and December 2019 by a single surgeon. The volume of the implant was measured against the weight of the breast. The data was analysed using Chi-squared test and independent t-test, and a P value of < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients had 86 implant reconstructions during this period. Median follow-up was 18 months (1–38). There was no statistical difference between IMF NSM and NSacriM with regard to smoking, obesity (BMI>30) and radiotherapy (P>0.05). The volume of the implants was more than the weight of the breast in IMF NSM group compared to the NSacriM group (22/34 vs 21/52; P = 0.026). Significantly more patients in IMF NSM group had an implant volume within 100 g of the mastectomy weight compared to NSacriM group (31/34 vs 33/52; P = 0.003). None of the 34 IMF NSM had wound necrosis or threatened wound compared to 7/52 in NSacriM group (P = 0.025); 4 were managed in the clinic and 3 were managed in theatre. One patient in the NSacriM group lost her implant post radiotherapy at 5 months, and another patient lost her implant at 3 years. Comparisons were made between IMF-NSM and skin sparing mastectomy (SSM) having fixed volume silicone implants. The analysis showed that 22/33 (67%) IMF-NSM, had a volume of the implant more than the weight of the breast compared to 15/35 (43%) having SSM, this was statistically significant. There was a statistical difference between these two groups with regard to ischemic complications in favour of IMF-NSM. CONCLUSION: IMF NSM allows safer insertion of larger volume implants in relation to the weight of the breast as opposed to NSacriM.