Latissimus dorsi flap (LD-flap) or endoprosthesis for breast reconstruction? Which is optimal for immediate reconstruction after a nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer patients?

Abstract

The article analyzes two methods of breast reconstruction: breast reconstruction with an implant or an LD‑flap after a subcutaneous nipple‑sparing mastectomy in the case of complex treatment of stage I — III breast cancer. In many works, the advantages and disadvantages of different types of reconstruction are indicated and contradictions can often be found, although most prefer reconstruction with implants.

Objective — to compare the results of immediate breast reconstruction using an implant or an ­LD‑flap after a subcutaneous nipple‑sparing mastectomy in patients with I — III stages of breast cancer.

Materials and methods. We conducted a comparative study of the results of immediate reconstruction of the mammary gland after a subcutaneous nipple‑sparing mastectomy using the method of putting a silicone implant (endoprosthesis) or the method of LD‑flap reconstruction. Randomization was not carried out. The results of operative interventions were retrospectively and parallelly compared in two groups: reconstruction of the mammary gland with an implant (1) or LD flap (2). In both groups of 30 patients, all patients were diagnosed with stage I — III breast cancer and in most cases (80 — 83 %) received preoperative chemotherapy for regression and reduction of the stage of the process. The evaluation of the treatment result was carried out according to aesthetic indicators, oncological survival indicators, and the subjective evaluation of the aesthetic result by patients.

Results. During the observation period since 2018, the analysis of the frequency of development in the groups of relapses and metastases during the 4‑year observation period (since 2018), the frequency of development of local complications in both groups: hematomas, skin necrosis, implant extrusions, seromas, lymphorrhea, capsular contractures, liponecrosis, lymphostasis of the upper extremity on the side of the operation, the degree and duration of the pain syndrome in the postoperative area, and the possibility of a full course of treatment did not show significant differences during the observation period. The quality of life in both groups, according to the Spitzer scale, was comparable (in the first group, 64 %, and in the second group, it was 63 %). Only the duration of postoperative bed rest was longer in the LD flap reconstruction group.

Conclusions. The results of the analysis of the study’s data showed that there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods. According to the findings, it is difficult to conclude which of the methods is more optimal, but it is necessary to choose the technique based on the constitutional characteristics of the patient and the size and shape of the mammary gland. An individualized and comprehensive approach is important.