ObjectiveTo understand the current research status of conservative mastectomy with breast reconstruction for breast cancer, so as to provide a reference for surgeons and patients with breast cancer to choose surgical method. MethodThe recently domestic and foreign literature on the research of conservative mastectomy with breast reconstruction for breast cancer was reviewed and summarized. ResultsAt present, conservative mastectomy mainly included nipple sparing mastectomy, skin sparing mastectomy, and skin reduction mastectomy. All three surgical methods were safe and effective in the treatment of breast cancer, and the complications could be controlled. When combined with breast reconstruction, the better cosmetic effect could be obtained, and the postoperative satisfaction and quality of life of patients were markedly improved. ConclusionsAfter comprehensively preoperative evaluation for patients with breast cancer, conservative mastectomy provides a treatment choice for them. After conservative mastectomy, individualized reconstruction scheme is formulated according to size and sagging degree of breast, as well as individual expectations of patients, which can obtain a higher quality of life while treating diseases for patients with breast cancer.
Endoscopic and robotic surgeries feature small incision and reducing surgical trauma, and minimized incision scars. However, the oncological safety of their application in breast-conserving surgery and breast reconstruction for breast cancer has always been a focal clinical concern. The breast-conserving surgery and breast reconstruction using the suspension, insufflation, and lipolysis methods could achieve precise tumor resection in the selected patients and under the specific surgical conditions, with the support of appropriate instruments. Meanwhile, the innovative application of the reverse-sequence method and auxiliary port technique has further enhanced surgical efficiency and the precision of tumor resection. Current studies suggest that endoscopic and robotic-assited breast-conserving surgery and breast reconstruction yield in terms of oncological outcomes comparable to those of conventional open breast-conserving surgery, including positive margins, local recurrence, regional recurrence, distant metastasis, and overall survival. These approaches offered advantages in minimally invasive techniques and aesthetic outcomes. However, existing research was limited by short follow-up period and small sample sizes. Future large-scale, long-term prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to further validate their oncological safety and long-term efficacy. These studies could help establish novel techniques as standard surgical approaches for breast cancer, particularly the efficient and streamlined reverse-sequence endoscopic and auxiliary port-assisted techniques.
ObjectiveTo compare the differences in surgical efficiency, surgical safety, aesthetic outcomes, and oncological safety between axillary single-incision endocsopic breast-conserving surgery (ASIEBS) and conventional open breast-conserving surgery (COBS), and to evaluate the clinical value of ASILBCS based on the “HUAXI hole 3” technique. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on the clinicopathologic data of patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer at West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2021 to September 2024. The patients were assigned into an ASILBCS group and a COBS group based on the surgical approach. Both groups received standardized surgical treatment and postoperative follow-up. The observation indicators included baseline characteristics, intraoperative data, postoperative complications, aesthetic outcome (by Ueda score and Harris score evaluation), and oncological safety (local recurrence and distant metastasis). ResultsA total of 67 patients were enrolled, with 41 in the ASIEBS group and 26 in the COBS group. There was no statistically significant differences in the comparison of other baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05), except for the proportions of patients with diabetes mellitus and those positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (P＜0.05). The ASIEBS group showed superior aesthetic outcomes compared to the COBS group (Ueda score: P=0.013; Harris score: P=0.047). However, the ASIEBS group had higher median total hospitalization costs (12 779.00 yuan vs. 12 354.50 yuan, Z=–2.16, P=0.03). The median follow-up time was 31.43 months in the ASIEBS group and 21.20 months in the COBS group (Z=–2.36, P=0.02). During follow-up, only one patient with local recurrence occurred in the ASIEBS group, and no distant metastasis or death event was observed in both groups. ConclusionThe ASIEBS based on the “HUAXI hole 3” technique is comparable to COBS in terms of surgical efficiency, surgical safety, and oncological safety, while offering superior aesthetic outcomes.