FENG Yu 1 , LUO Guilin 1 , LIANG Faqing 2,3 , ZHANG Donglin 1 , DU Zhenggui 2,3
  • 1. Department of General Surgery, The Fourth People’s Hospital of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610016, P. R. China;
  • 2. Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
  • 3. Breast Disease Research Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
ZHANG Donglin, Email: zoomail@126.com; DU Zhenggui, Email: docduzg@163.com
latissimus dorsi muscle flap; breast reconstruction; endoscope; open surgery
10.7507/1007-9424.202411035
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective To compare the surgical data, safety, cosmetic outcomes, and quality of life of patients underwent a single axillary incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with endoscopic harvesting of latissimus dorsi muscle flap (abbreviation as the “laparoscopic group”) and traditional open surgery of latissimus dorsi muscle flap harvesting for breast reconstruction after mastectomy (abbreviation as the “open group”). Methods The patients were collected, who underwent latissimus dorsi reconstruction at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University and the Fourth People’s Hospital of Sichuan Province from January 2021 to June 2024 from a prospective maintenance database, and then were assigned into a laparoscopic group and an open group according to the surgical method, and their basic information, information relevant operation, postoperative complications, and patient reported outcomes (BREAST-Q scale) score were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 73 patients were collected, including 23 patients in the endoscopic group and 50 patients in the traditional open group. A longer size of latissimus dorsi muscle flap was harvested in the endoscopic group as compared with the open group (P=0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in the total surgical complications, major complications, minor complications, and implant related complications between the two groups of patients (P>0.05). The most common complications in the patients of both groups was back seroma, 21.7% (5/23) in the endoscopic group and 22.0% (11/50) in the open group. The major complications did not happen in the endoscopic group, but happened in 2 cases in the open group (1 patient due to ischemic necrosis of the latissimus dorsi muscle and 1 patient due to breast infection resulting in implant removal). The total length of incisions in the endoscopic group was significantly smaller than that in the open group (P<0.001), and the points of the breast satisfaction (P=0.045), back satisfaction (P<0.001), and sexual health (P=0.028) of the patients in the endoscopic group were significantly higher than those in the open group. During the follow-up period, 3 patients (6.0%) had distant metastasis (all were lung metastasis) in the open group, and there was no local or regional recurrence, distant metastasis and specific death of breast cancer in the endoscopic group. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that, for patients who have skin invasion but who desire breast reconstruction or have failed by prosthetic breast reconstruction (such as skin flap necrosis), traditional open latissimus dorsi muscle is a surgical option worth choosing. However, for breast cancer patients who do not need additional skin breast reconstruction, endoscopic latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction has greater advantages in cosmetic effect, and it is safe and effective.

Copyright © the editorial department of CHINESE JOURNAL OF BASES AND CLINICS IN GENERAL SURGERY of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved