Evolution of minimal access breast surgery

Oncological, surgical, and cosmetic outcomes of endoscopic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been developed to improve the cosmetic outcomes of conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy. This meta-analysis compares surgical, quality of life and oncological outcomes of endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were systematically reviewed to identify literature relevant to endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy literature published through to August 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and proportional and pairwise random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Surgical (operative time, duration of hospital stay, blood loss, necrosis, overall complications), quality of life (cosmesis, pain, nipple-areolar complex sensitivity) and oncological outcomes (margin positivity, recurrence, metastasis and breast cancer-specific mortality rate) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 1286 articles retrieved, 51 endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy studies and 12 conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy reviews were analysed; 10 non-randomized comparative studies (656 patients) were included in the pairwise analysis and 36 studies (comparative and single-group cohort studies; 2612 patients) in the proportional meta-analysis. Results showed no differences in oncological outcomes (mean follow-up of up to 52 months), comparable overall (OR = 0.49; P = 0.100) and necrotic complications (OR = 0.45; P = 0.150), and improved cosmetic satisfaction (OR = 1.88; P = 0.020). Comparing only single-incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy to conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy significantly reduced postoperative necrosis (OR = 0.19; P = 0.008). The proportional meta-analysis produced oncological and surgical outcome rates comparable to or lower than conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy rates. However, longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 43.08 min; P < 0.00001) and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = 0.72 days; P = 0.0007) were observed.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy does not affect oncological outcomes in up to 52 months mean follow-up when compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy and provides better cosmetic satisfaction, with a reduced risk of necrosis after single-incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy. As such, endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy may become a viable breast surgery option.

Single-Port Three-Dimensional Endoscopic-Assisted Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (S-P 3D E-ALND): Surgical Technique and Preliminary Results

Background: Endoscopic-assisted breast surgery (EABS) provides better cosmetic outcomes for breast cancer patients with small incisions in an inconspicuous area. However, an extended incision and heavy assistant retraction are usually required for an adequate exposure for conventional axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Therefore, we propose an innovative single-port three-dimensional endoscopic-assisted ALND (S-P 3D E-ALND) to facilitate better visualization, and report its preliminary outcomes herein. Methods: The surgical technique of the S-P 3D E-ALND, using either monopolar Endo Hook, LigaSure, or Sonicision, is described. A total of 11 breast cancer patients who received the S-P 3D E-ALND in a single institution from January 2023 to September 2023 were enrolled. The preliminary results of the S-P 3D E-ALND, including perioperative parameters, complication, and short-term oncological outcomes, were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Endoscopic breast and axillary procedures were conducted via a single axillary incision. The primary success rate of the S-P 3D E-ALND was 100% without a conversion to open surgery. The median operative time for the S-P 3D E-ALND was 39 (IQR = 28, 49) minutes. Average blood loss during E-ALND was 3 (IQR = 3, 5) mL. The median number of harvested LN was 10 (IQR = 8, 11) LNs. During the median follow-up time of 7 months, there was no complication, lymphedema, shoulder stiffness, or chronic arm numbness found. None of the patients reported locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, or mortality. Conclusion: The S-P 3D E-ALND can serve as an alternative approach for ALND in breast cancer patients undergoing EABS, as our findings indicate it results in only minor complications.

Comparison of endoscopic breast-conserving surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Introduction

This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic breast-conserving surgery (E-BCS) compared to conventional breast cancer surgery (C-BCS) in patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

Materials and methods

Four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL) were searched published from establishment of database to January 30,2024, for articles studying E-BCS compared to C-BCS in patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Meta-analyses of procedure time, blood loss, length of incision, drainage duration, total postoperative drainage volume, average duration of hospital stay, positive rate of margin, complication rate, recurrence rate, metastasis rate and cosmetic scoring were performed.

Results

Totally 11 studies were included for meta-analysis. Compared with C-BCS, E-BCS exhibited significantly reduced incision length (WMD = -6.44, 95%CI: -10.78 to -2.11, P=0.004, I2 = 99.0%) and superior cosmetic scoring (WMD = 2.69, 95%CI: 1.46 to 3.93, P=0.001, I2 = 93.2%), but had significantly longer operation time (WMD = 34.22, 95%CI: 20.89~47.55, P=0.000, I2 = 90.7%) and blood loss (WMD = 3.65, 95%CI: -3.12 to 10.43, P=0.291, I2 = 86.8%). There was no significant difference in terms of recurrence rate, metastasis rate, positive rate of tumor resection margins, drainage duration, drainage volume, complication rate and hospital days.

Conclusions

Our research findings indicate that E-BCS is a viable and secure method for treating breast cancer in its early stages. E-BCS provides distinct advantages in terms of the length of the incision and the aesthetic result, without demonstrating an elevated recurrence rate or metastasis rate.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024535164, identifier CRD42024535164.

Use of artificial intelligence in breast surgery: a narrative review

Background and Objective

We have witnessed tremendous advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Breast surgery, a subspecialty of general surgery, has notably benefited from AI technologies. This review aims to evaluate how AI has been integrated into breast surgery practices, to assess its effectiveness in improving surgical outcomes and operational efficiency, and to identify potential areas for future research and application.

Methods

Two authors independently conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from January 1, 1950, to September 4, 2023, employing keywords pertinent to AI in conjunction with breast surgery or cancer. The search focused on English language publications, where relevance was determined through meticulous screening of titles, abstracts, and full-texts, followed by an additional review of references within these articles. The review covered a range of studies illustrating the applications of AI in breast surgery encompassing lesion diagnosis to postoperative follow-up. Publications focusing specifically on breast reconstruction were excluded.

Key Content and Findings

AI models have preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative applications in the field of breast surgery. Using breast imaging scans and patient data, AI models have been designed to predict the risk of breast cancer and determine the need for breast cancer surgery. In addition, using breast imaging scans and histopathological slides, models were used for detecting, classifying, segmenting, grading, and staging breast tumors. Preoperative applications included patient education and the display of expected aesthetic outcomes. Models were also designed to provide intraoperative assistance for precise tumor resection and margin status assessment. As well, AI was used to predict postoperative complications, survival, and cancer recurrence.

Conclusions

Extra research is required to move AI models from the experimental stage to actual implementation in healthcare. With the rapid evolution of AI, further applications are expected in the coming years including direct performance of breast surgery. Breast surgeons should be updated with the advances in AI applications in breast surgery to provide the best care for their patients.

Usefulness of cordless ultrasonic cutting energy devices in endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a retrospective study

Purpose

Endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) is a minimally invasive surgical technique that shows good results in patients with breast cancer. The authors compared 3 different types of commercial energy devices to examine their efficacy and safety in E-NSM performed with breast reconstruction.

Methods

A total of 36 cases of E-NSM were conducted with either Sonicision (S group, n = 11), Harmonic (H group, n = 6), or Thunderbeat (T group, n = 19). The clinicopathologic factors and postoperative complications, including nipple or skin necrosis and surgical site seroma volume, were evaluated for 3 months after surgery.

Results

The surgical duration of E-NSM was significantly shorter in the S group than in the H group (P = 0.043) and T group (P = 0.037). However, the total surgical duration including E-NSM and breast reconstruction, and the total and daily drainage volume of postoperative seroma did not differ significantly among the 3 groups. Even when the energy devices were compared according to their working principle, i.e., ultrasonic (S and H) vs. hybrid (T), the total breast surgery duration and total and daily drainage volume of seroma showed no difference between the 2 groups. Although surgeon satisfaction did not significantly differ when using 3 devices for E-NSM (P = 0.428), surgeon's fatigue was found to be lowest in the S group, though it was not significant (P = 0.064).

Conclusion

Any energy device can be safely used for E-NSM with breast reconstruction without causing any major complications. However, cordless ultrasonic energy devices allow greater mobility for the surgeon and, therefore, may shorten surgical time in breast surgery.

Robotic Versus Conventional or Endoscopic-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Prospectively Designed Multicenter Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, and Patient-reported Outcomes (RCENSM-P)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of minimal access and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM). The secondary outcomes investigated included medical costs and oncological safety.

BACKGROUND

Minimal-access NSM has been increasingly applied in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. However, prospective multicenter trials comparing robotic-assisted NSM (R-NSM) versus C-NSM or endoscopic-assisted NSM (E-NSM) are lacking.

METHODS

A prospectively designed 3-arm multicenter, nonrandomized trial (NCT04037852) was conducted from October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, to compare R-NSM with C-NSM or E-NSM.

RESULTS

A total of 73 R-NSM, 74 C-NSM, and 84 E-NSM procedures were enrolled. The median wound length and operation time of C-NSM was (9 cm, 175 minutes), (4 cm, and 195 minutes) in R-NSM, and (4 cm and 222 minutes) in E-NSM. Complications were comparable among the groups. Better wound healing was observed in the minimal-access NSM group. The R-NSM procedure was 4000 and 2600 United States Dollars more expensive than C-NSM and E-NSM, respectively. Wound/scar and postoperative acute pain evaluation favored the use of minimal access NSM over C-NSM. Quality of life in terms of chronic breast/chest pain, mobility, and range of motion of the upper extremity showed no significant differences. The preliminary oncologic results showed no differences among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

R-NSM or E-NSM is a safe alternative if compared with C-NSM in terms of perioperative morbidities, especially with better wound healing. The advantage of minimal access groups was higher wound-related satisfaction. Higher costs remain one of the major limiting factors in the widespread adoption of R-NSM.

A systematic review of robotic breast surgery versus open surgery

Robotic-assisted breast surgery (RABS) is controversial. We systematically reviewed the evidence about RABS, comparing it to open conventional breast surgery (CBS). Following prospective registration (osf.io/97ewt), a search was performed in January 2023, without time or language restrictions, through bibliographic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Trip database and CDSR) and grey literature. Quality was assessed in duplicate using Qualsyst criteria (score range 0.0-1.0); reviewer agreement was 98%. The 16 selected studies (total patients: 334,804) had overall high quality (mean score 0.82; range 0.68-0.91). Nine of 16 (56.3%) were cohort studies, 2/16 (12.5%) RCTs, and 5/16 (31.3%) case-control studies. Taking p < 0.05 as the significance threshold, RABS versus CBS was better in aesthetic results and patient satisfaction (10/11 studies; 90%), was surgically costly (4/4 studies; 100%), time-consuming (9/13 studies; 69%), and less painful in the first 6-24 h (2/2 studies; 100%) and without statistically significant differences in complication rates (10/12 studies; 83%) or short-term oncological outcomes (10/10 studies; 100%). Surgical time could be dramatically reduced by training surgical teams, reaching no significant differences between approaches (p = 0.120). RABS was shown to be feasible and safe. The advantages of RABS and long-term outcomes need further research.

Single-port three-dimensional (3D) endoscopic-assisted breast surgery-preliminary results and patient-reported satisfaction in 145 breast cancer and gynecomastia cases

BACKGROUND

Minimal-accessed (robotic and endoscopic) breast cancer surgery is increasingly performed due to better cosmetic results and acceptable oncological outcomes. This study aims to demonstrate the clinical safety and patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction of single-port three-dimensional endoscopic-assisted breast surgery (S-P 3D EABS), which is our new endoscopic surgical innovation, in both malignant and benign breast conditions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent S-P 3D EABS from 1 August 2018 to 31 July 2022 in a single institution were enrolled. Clinical outcomes of this procedure were retrospectively reviewed, and the patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction was evaluated by a questionnaire and reported herein.

RESULTS

During the study period, 145 patients underwent 164 procedures of S-P 3D EABS. One hundred fifty (91.5%) procedures were endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (S-P 3D E-NSM; 117 therapeutic procedures for breast cancer, 13 prophylactic mastectomies, 20 procedures for gynecomastia). Fourteen (8.5%) procedures of endoscopic-assisted breast-conserving surgery (S-P 3D E-BCS) were performed (12 S-P 3D E-BCS, 2 S-P 3D E-BCS with 3D videoscope-assisted partial breast reconstruction, which was 1 case of latissimus dorsi flap and 1 case of omental flap). The mean operative time was 245 ± 110 min in S-P 3D E-NSM and 260 ± 142 min in S-P 3D E-BCS. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 49.7 ± 46.9 ml in S-P 3D E-NSM and 32.8 ± 17.5 ml in S-P 3D E-BCS. Subnipple biopsy showed positive malignancy in 3 (2.6%) S-P 3D E-NSM patients. None of the S-P 3D E-BCS patients found margin involvement; however, 3 (2.6%) reported margin involvement in S-P 3D E-NSM patients. Thirty-two complications were found (24.6%): 7 (5.3%) transient nipple-areolar complex (NAC) ischemia, 7 (5.3%) partial NAC necrosis, 1 (0.7%) total NAC necrosis, and 1 (0.7%) implant loss. During the mean follow-up time of 34 months, there were 2 (1.5%) patients with locoregional recurrence, 9 (6.9%) distant metastasis, and 2 (1.5%) mortality. 78.6% (77/98) of patients answering the cosmetic-evaluated questionnaire reported good and excellent overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

S-P 3D EABS is a novel surgical innovation, which is able to perform safely in either malignant or benign breast conditions and offer promising cosmetic results.

A Preliminary Experience of Endoscopic Total Mastectomy With Immediate Free Abdominal-Based Perforator Flap Reconstruction Using Minimal Incisions, and Literature Review

PURPOSE

Endoscopic total mastectomy (ETM) is predominantly performed with reconstruction using prostheses, lipofilling, omental flaps, latissimus dorsi flaps, or a combination of these techniques. Common approaches include minimal incisions, e.g., periareolar, inframammary, axillary, or mid-axillary line, which limit the technical ability to perform autologous flap insets and microvascular anastomoses, as such the ETM with free abdominal-based perforator flap reconstruction has not been robustly explored.

METHODS

We studied female patients with breast cancer who underwent ETM and abdominal-based flap reconstruction. Clinical-radiological-pathological characteristics, surgery, complications, recurrence rates, and aesthetic outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients underwent ETM with abdominal-based flap reconstruction. The mean age was 53.4 years (range 36-65). Of the patients, 33.3% were surgically treated for stage I, 58.4% for stage II, and 8.3% for stage III cancer. Mean tumor size was 35.4 mm (range 1-67). Mean specimen weight was 458.75 g (range 242-800). Of the patients, 92.3% successfully received endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and 7.7% underwent intraoperative conversion to skin-sparing mastectomy after carcinoma was reported on frozen section of the nipple base. Mean operative time for ETM was 139 minutes (92-198), and the average ischemic time was 37.3 minutes (range 22-50). Fifty percent of patients underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator, 33.4% underwent MS-2 transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM), 8.3% underwent MS-1 TRAM, and 8.3% underwent pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction. No cases required re-exploration, no flap failure occurred, margins were clear, and no skin or nipple-areolar complex ischemia/necrosis developed. In the aesthetic outcome evaluation, 16.7% were excellent, 75% good, 8.3% fair, and none were unsatisfactory. No recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSION

ETM through a minimal-access inferior mammary or mid-axillary line approach, followed by immediate pedicled TRAM or free abdominal-based perforator flap reconstruction, can be a safe means of achieving an "aesthetically scarless" mastectomy and reconstruction through minimal incisions.

Endoscopy-assisted breast conservation surgery (E-BCS) vs conventional breast conservation surgery (C-BCS) technique for the management of early breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy-assisted breast conserving surgery (E-BCS) was developed over 10 years ago as a method for breast cancer treatment with the potential advantage of less noticeable scarring. However, the evidence supporting its superiority over conventional breast conserving surgery (C-BCS) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the outcomes of E-BCS and C-BCS for the treatment of early breast cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for relevant articles was performed using specific keywords in Medline, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library PubMed up to October 17th, 2022. Clinical trials that compared E-BCS with C-BCS in early breast cancer patients were collected.

RESULTS

Our analysis of nine studies revealed that E-BCS was associated with shorter incision length [Mean Difference (MD) -6.50 cm (95% CI -10.75, -2.26), p = 0.003, I2 = 99%] and higher cosmetic score [MD 2.69 (95% CI 1.46, 3.93), p < 0.0001, I2 = 93%] compared with C-BCS. However, E-BCS had a longer operation time [MD 35.95 min (95% CI 19.12, 52.78), p < 0.0001, I2 = 93%] and greater drainage volume [MD 62.91 mL (95% CI 2.55, 123.27), p = 0.04, I2 = 79%]. There was no significant difference in blood loss volume (p = 0.06), drainage duration (p = 0.28), postoperative complications (p = 0.69), or local recurrence (p = 0.59) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that E-BCS offers a shorter incision length and better cosmetic outcome compared with C-BCS in the treatment of early breast cancer. However, E-BCS requires a longer operation time and has greater drainage volume. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Minimal Access (Endoscopic and Robotic) Breast Surgery in the Surgical Treatment of Early Breast Cancer-Trend and Clinical Outcome From a Single-Surgeon Experience Over 10 Years

Objective

Endoscopic assisted breast surgery (EABS) or robotic assisted breast surgery (RABS) performed through minimal axillary and/or peri-areolar incisions has become the representative of minimal access breast surgery (MABS). We report the trend and clinical outcome of MABS for treatment of breast cancer.

Methods

Information on patients who underwent breast cancer operation by the principal investigator during the period of 2011 to 2020 was collected from a single institute for analysis. The clinical outcome, trend, and cost of MABS were analyzed and compared with conventional breast surgery (CBS).

Results

A total of 824 breast cancer patients operated by a single surgeon were enrolled in this study: 254 received CBS and 570 received MABS, namely, 476 EABS and 94 RABS. From 2011 to 2020, the number of MABS performed annually has shown an increasing trend. Compared with CBS, MABS such as breast conserving surgery and nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) have effectively reduced wound scar length. Since the sequential uprise from conventional NSM (C-NSM), dual-axillary-areolar-incision two dimensional (2D) endoscopic assisted NSM (E-NSM), single-axillary-incision E-NSM, robotic assisted NSM (R-NSM), and single-port 3D E-NSM, the development of minimal access mastectomies increasingly paralleled with NSM. The operation time of various MABS decreased significantly and showed no statistical difference compared with CBS. R-NSM was associated with highest cost, followed by 3D E-NSM, E-NSM, and C-NSM. The positive surgical margin rate and local recurrence rate of MABS and CBS were not statistically different.

Conclusion

MABS showed comparable clinical outcome and preliminary oncologic safety as CBS and has been increasingly performed as the surgical treatment of breast cancer, especially minimal access NSM.

Oncologic Outcome of Endoscopic Assisted Breast Surgery Compared with Conventional Approach in Breast Cancer: An Analysis of 3426 Primary Operable Breast Cancer Patients from Single Institute with and Without Propensity Score Matching

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy-assisted breast surgery (EABS) performed through minimal axillary and/or peri-areolar incisions is a possible alternative to conventional breast surgery (CBS) for certain patients with breast cancer. In this study, we report the oncologic safety results of EABS compared with CBS.

METHODS

Patients underwent EABS for breast cancer during the period June 2010 to March 2020 were collected from the EABS database from single institute, and another cohort of patients, who received CBS, were identified to determine the effectiveness and oncologic safety of EABS. A case-control study was conducted using propensity score matching (PSM) to prevent bias from cases selection.

RESULTS

A total of 3426 patients were enrolled in the current study, including 405 patients receiving EABS and 3021 underwent CBS. Before PSM, patients selected for EABS tend to be smaller in tumor size, node negative, early stage, low histologic grade, and HER-2 negative. After PSM, 343 patients underwent EABS were compared with another 343 patients received CBS. The margin involved rate in EABS group is 2.6%, and 5.6% in CBS group (p = 0.054) after PSM. In breast conserving cases, the margin involved rates were 2% in EABS group, and 7.2% in CBS group (p = 0.04). In Kaplan-Meier survival curves analysis, there was no difference in local regional recurrence (p = 0.89), distant metastasis (p = 0.08), and overall survival (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

The preliminary oncologic safety analysis from current study showed EABS is a safe procedure and results in low margin involved rate, and no increase of locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis or mortality compared with CBS.

Single-Port Three-Dimensional (3D) Videoscope-Assisted Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in the Management of Breast Cancer: Technique, Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, Learning Curve, and Patient-Reported Aesthetic Results from 80 Preliminary Procedures

BACKGROUND

The preliminary results of an innovative surgical technique, which incorporated single-port three-dimensional (3D) videoscope and instruments for endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM), were reported.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent single-port 3D E-NSM for breast cancer from August 2018 to September 2020 were analyzed, and the preliminary outcome of this procedure as well as the patient-reported aesthetic results are described in this article.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 70 patients who received 80 procedures of single-port 3D E-NSM. The mean operation time was 158 ± 36 min, and the mean blood loss was 41 ± 26 ml. Three procedures (3.8 %) associated with delayed axillary wound-healing, eight cases of transient nipple ischemia (10 %), three cases of partial nipple ischemia/necrosis (3.7 %), and one case of total nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis (1.3 %) were observed. No patient had margin involvement. Satisfaction rates of approximately 90 % were observed in terms of postoperative scar appearance, location, and length. Most of the patients (87.8 %) reported that they would choose the same operation again if given the chance to do so. The overall cost of a single-port 3D E-NSM was 7522 ± 470 U.S. dollars. According to cumulative sum (CUSUM) plot analysis, about 14 cases were needed for surgeons to familiarize themselves with single-port 3D E-NSM and immediate gel implant reconstruction and to decrease their operation time significantly in the initial learning phase.

CONCLUSION

Single-port 3D E-NSM, a safe, efficient, lower-cost procedure, is associated with a good aesthetic result. It is a promising new technique for breast cancer patients indicated for mastectomy, but long-term oncologic safety follow-up evaluation still is needed.