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.
ObjectiveTo compare the satisfaction and safety of patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction (PBR) versus subpectoral dual-plane breast reconstruction (SBR) with implants combined with mesh after open total mastectomy for breast cancer. MethodsA prospective cohort study on clinical data of breast cancer patients who underwent open total mastectomy and received either PBR or SBR with implants and mesh for immediate breast reconstruction from June 2021 to October 2022 at West China Hospital of Sichuan University were performed. The pain scores on postoperative days 1, 3, 7, and 14, the use of analgesics within 14 days post-surgery, and the incidence of postoperative complications, breast satisfaction, and quality of life during follow-up periods were compared between the two groups. ResultsA total of 62 female patients were included, with 35 in the PBR group, having an average age of (39.6±6.5) years, and 27 in the SBR group, having an average age of (41.5±9.9) years. The pain scores of the SBR group on postoperative days 3 (P=0.032), 7 (P＜0.001), and 14 (P＜0.001) were significantly higher than those of the PBR group, and a higher proportion of patients in the SBR group used analgesics within 14 days post-surgery (P=0.001). The median follow-up time was 28.4 months for the PBR group and 34.9 months for the SBR group. There was no statistical difference in the overall (P=0.583), major (P=0.526), and minor (P=0.532) complication rates between the two groups during follow-up. One (2.9%) patient in the PBR group and two (7.4%) patients in the SBR group lost their implants (P=0.575). Four (14.8%) patients in each of the SBR group experienced movement deformities and chest muscle pain, whereas no patients in the PBR group had these issues (P=0.031). Encapsular contracture occurred in 5 (14.3%) patients in the PBR group and 11 (40.7%) patients in the SBR group (P=0.023). The incidences of ripple sign (25.7% vs. 3.7%, P=0.033) and implant contour visibility (40.0% vs. 11.1%, P=0.020) were significantly higher in the PBR group than those in the SBR group. At 24 months post-surgery, breast satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the PBR group [(67.9±13.1) points vs. (52.6±16.9) points, P=0.001]. The scores for cosmetic satisfaction [(70.7±13.4) points vs. (58.7±14.3) points, P=0.035] and chest function satisfaction [(70.7±13.4) points vs. (58.7±14.3) points, P=0.035] were higher in the PBR group. No local recurrence, distant metastasis, or deaths occurred in the PBR group during the follow-up period, while one patient of local recurrence and distant metastasis occurred in the SBR group, with no deaths. ConclusionCompared to SBR, PBR is more in line with the physiological and anatomical levels of the breast, effectively avoiding postoperative movement deformities and chest muscle pain, with a lower incidence of capsular contracture, and higher postoperative breast satisfaction and chest function satisfaction. It is a safe and feasible reconstruction method. For some specific patients, especially those with higher physical activity demands, it is a better reconstruction choice.
In conventional open breast surgery, the surgical trauma is significant and the postoperative scar is often noticeable. Endoscopic and robot-assisted breast surgery is increasingly attracting attention due to the advantages such as smaller incisions, lower complication rate, and improved aesthetic outcomes. However, the lack of natural cavities in the breast has become a primary challenge in establishing and maintaining the necessary surgical space for endoscopic breast surgery. We reviewed the research progress of endoscopic and robot-assisted breast surgery, summarized the the innovations and challenges of existing techniques, and focused on introducing the application value of physical and biological properties of gas and liquid in endoscopic breast surgery.