Batwing mastopexy (BWM) is an oncoplastic technique most commonly used in the treatment of 12 o'clock periareolar tumors. The aim of this study was to assess the early cosmetic results of BWM performed for periareolar lesions located in the upper quadrants, i.e. from 10 to 2 o'clock position.
Methods and study design
A prospective analysis of a preliminary group of 35 women with periareolar intraductal or invasive breast cancer in the upper quadrants was done. All patients underwent wide lumpectomy with clear margins followed by BWM in order to obtain favorable cosmesis. For invasive cancers axillary biopsy or dissection was performed by separate incision. Cosmetic outcome was assessed 4 weeks after surgery by the patient with reference to breast shape, nipple-areola complex (NAC) position and scar arrangement. The result was rated as poor, medium or good for each parameter.
Results
There were no poor ratings of cosmetic outcome. The result was rated as medium by 5 women (14%) regarding breast shape and by 3 regarding NAC position (9%). The remaining women evaluated these parameters as good (86% and 91%, respectively). In contrast, scar arrangement was assessed as good by 26 patients (74%), medium by 8 (23%), and poor by 1 (3%). All women rating scar arrangement as other than good had a lesion located in the upper lateral quadrant. Considering the reasons for the relatively low scar acceptance by these women, the only important cause of disappointment was the placement of one of the radial parts of the scar in the area of decolletage in the upper medial quadrant.
Conclusions
BWM allows to achieve favorable breast shape and NAC position for lesions located in the upper quadrants regardless of the medial or lateral side. However, when performed in the lateral quadrant it produces a scar that can be hard to accept for some women.
AudretschW., RezaiM., KolotasC., ZamboglouN., SchnabelT., BojarH.: Tumor-specific immediate reconstruction in breast cancer patients (TSIR).Perspect Plast Surg, 11: 71–100, 1998.
2.
CloughK.B., LewisJ.S., CouturaudB., FitoussiA., NosC., FalcouM.C.: Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas.Ann Surg, 237: 26–34, 2003.
3.
GiacaloneP.L., RogerP., DubonO., El GarechN., RihaouiS., TaourelP., DauresJ.P.: Comparative study of the accuracy of breast resection in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer.Ann Surg Oncol, 14: 605–614, 2007.
4.
KaurN., PetitJ.Y., RietjensM., MaffiniF., LuiniA., GattiG., ReyP.C., UrbanC., De LorenziF.: Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer.Ann Surg Oncol, 12: 539–545, 2005.
5.
FitzalF., GnantM.: Breast conservation: evolution of surgical strategies.Breast J, 12: S165–S173, 2006.
6.
AndersonB.O., MasettiR., SilversteinM.J.: Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques.Lancet Oncol, 6: 145–157, 2005.
7.
BaildamA., BishopH., BolandG., DalglishM., DaviesL., FatahF., GoochH., HarcourtD., MartinL., RainsburyD., RayterZ., SheppardC., SmithJ., Weiler-MithoffE., WinstanleyJ.: Oncoplastic breast surgery – a guide to good practice.Eur J Surg Oncol, 33(Suppl 1): S1–S23, 2007.
8.
FitzalF., NehrerG., DeutingerM., JakeszR., GnantM.: Novel strategies in oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer: immediate partial reconstruction of breast defects.Eur Surg, 39: 330–339, 2007.
9.
Al-GhazalS.K., BlameyR.W., StewartJ., MorganA.A.: The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation.Eur J Surg Oncol, 25: 566–570, 1999.
10.
HopwoodP., FletcherI., LeeA., Al GhazalS.: A body image scale for use with cancer patients.Eur J Cancer, 37: 189–197, 2001.
11.
Al-GhazalS.K., FallowfieldL., BlameyR.W.: Patient evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conserving surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer.Eur J Surg Oncol, 25: 344–346, 1999.
12.
BussieresE., GuyonF., ThomasL., StockleE., FaucherA., DurandM.: Conservation treatment in subareolar breast cancers.Eur J Surg Oncol, 22: 267–270, 1996.
13.
DaleP.S., GiulianoA.E.: Nipple-areola preservation during breast-conserving therapy for subareolar breast carcinomas.Arch Surg, 131: 430–433, 1996.
14.
HafftyB.G., WilsonL.D., SmithR., FisherD., BeinfieldM., WardB., McKhannC.: Subareolar breast cancer: long-term results with conservative surgery and radiation therapy.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 33: 53–57, 1995.
15.
GalimbertiV., ZurridaS., ZaniniV., CallegariM., VeronesiP., CataniaS., LuiniA., GrecoM., GrisottiA.: Central small size breast cancer: how to overcome the problem of nipple and areola involvement.Eur J Cancer, 29A: 1093–1096, 1993.
16.
PezziC.M., KukoraJ.S., AudetI.M., HerbertS.H., HorvickD., RichterM.P.: Breast conservation surgery using nipple-are-olar resection for central breast cancers.Arch Surg, 139: 32–37, 2004.
17.
McCulleyS.J., DuraniP., MacmillanR.D.: Therapeutic mammaplasty for centrally located breast tumors.Plast Reconstr Surg, 117: 366–373, 2006.
18.
ChungT.L., SchnaperL., SilvermanR.P., HoltonLH3rd, SlezakS.: A novel reconstructive technique following central lumpectomy.Plast Reconstr Surg, 118: 23–27, 2006.
19.
ShoellerT., HuemerG.M.: Immediate reconstruction of the nipple/areola complex in oncoplastic surgery after central quadrantectomy.Ann Plast Surg, 57: 611–615, 2006.
20.
FitzalF., MittlboeckM., TrischlerH., KroisW., NehrerG., DeutingerM., JakeszR., GnantM.: Breast-conserving therapy for centrally located breast cancer.Ann Surg, 247: 470–476, 2008.
21.
BenelliL.: A new periareolar mammaplasty: the “round block” technique.Aesthetic Plast Surg, 14: 93–100, 1990.
22.
MasettiR., PirulliP.G., MagnoS., FranceschiniG., ChiesaF., AntinoriA.: Oncoplastic techniques in the conservative surgical treatment of breast cancer.Breast Cancer, 7: 276–280, 2000.
23.
Hall-FindlayE.J.: A simplified vertical reduction mammaplasty: shortening in learning curve.Plast Reconstr Surg, 104: 748–759; discussion 760–763, 1999.
24.
FitzalF., NehrerG., HochD., RiedlO., GutharcS., DeutingerM., JakeszR., GnantM.: An oncoplastic procedure for central and medio-cranial breast cancer.Eur J Surg Oncol, 33: 1158–1163, 2007.
25.
LejourM.: Reduction of mammaplasty scars: from a short inframammary scar to a vertical scar.Ann Chir Plast Esthet, 35: 369–379, 1990.
26.
LassusC.: A 30-year experience with vertical mammaplasty.Plast Reconstr Surg, 97: 373–380, 1996.
27.
LoskenA., StybloT.M., CarlsonG.W., JonesG.E., AmersonB.J.: Management algorithm and outcome evaluation of partial mastectomy defects treated using reduction or mastopexy techniques.Ann Plast Surg, 59: 235–242, 2007.
28.
SpearS.L., PelletiereC.V., WolfeA.J., TsangarisT.N., PennanenM.F.: Experience with reduction mammaplasty combined with breast conservation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer.Plast Reconstr Surg, 111: 1102–1109, 2003.
29.
MunhozA.M., MontagE., ArrudaE.G., AldrighiC., GemperliR., AldrighiJ.M., FerreiraM.C.: Critical analysis of reduction mammaplasty techniques in combination with conservative breast surgery for early breast cancer treatment.Plast Reconstr Surg, 117: 1091–1103; discussion 1104–1107, 2006.
30.
SilversteinM.J.: An argument against routine use of radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ.Oncology (Williston Park), 17: 1511–1533, 2003.
31.
FortinA., CheangM., LatosinskyS.: Cosmetic outcomes following breast conservation therapy: in search of a reliable scale.Breast Cancer Res Treat, 100: 65–70, 2006.
32.
CardosoM.J., CardosoJ., SantosA.C., VrielingC., ChristieD., LiljegrenG., AzedevoI., JohansenJ., RosaJ., AmaralN., SaaristoR., SacchiniV., BarrosH., OliveiraM.C.: Factors determining esthetic outcome after breast cancer conservative treatment.Breast J, 13: 140–146, 2007.
33.
EdstromL.E., RobsonM.C., WrightJ.K.: A method for the evaluation of minor degrees of breast asymmetry.Plast Reconstruct Surg, 60: 812–814, 1977.
34.
PeznerR.D., PattersonM.P., HillL.R., VoraN., DesaiK.R., ArchambeauJ.O., LipsettJ.A.: Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 11: 575–578, 1985.
35.
MalataC.M., BootJ.C., BradburyE.T., RamliA.R., SharpeD.T.: Congenital breast asymmetry: subjective and objective assessment.Br J Plast Surg, 47: 95–102, 1994.
36.
CardosoM.J., CardosoJ., AmaralN., AzedevoI., BarreauL., BernardoM., ChristieD., CostaS., FitzalF., FougoJ.L., JohansenJ., MacmillanD., ManoM.P., RegoloL., RosaJ., TeixeiraL., VrielingC.: Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment.Breast, 16: 456–461, 2007.
37.
FitzalF., KroisW., TrischlerH., WutzelL., RiedlO., KuhbelbockU., WintersteinerB., CardosoM.J., DubskyP., GnantM., JakeszR., WildT.: The use of breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis.Breast, 16: 429–435, 2007.
38.
LoskenA., FishmanI., DensonD.D., MoyerH.R., CarlsonG.W.: An objective evaluation of breast symmetry and shape differences using 3-dimensional images.Ann Plast Surg, 55: 571–575, 2005.
39.
MoyerH.R., CarlsonG.W., StybloT.M., LoskenA.: Three-dimensional digital evaluation of breast symmetry after breast conservation therapy.J Am Coll Surg, 207: 227–232, 2008.
40.
CatanutoG., PateteP., SpanoA., PennatiA., BaroniG., NavaM.B.: New technologies for the assessment of breast surgical outcomes.Aesthet Surg J, 29: 505–508, 2009.
