{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028985507246376812, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00966183574879227, 'mean_word_length': 5.616613418530352, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing Nipple-sparing Mastectomy to Secondary Nipple Reconstruction

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Objective: The primary aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of women who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after receiving either: (1) nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) or (2) simple mastectomy with subsequent nipple reconstruction (SNR). Background: The goal of post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is to restore body image and quality-of-life after mastectomy, but removal of the nipple-areolar complex may have its own negative psychosocial consequences. NSM may have increased in popularity due to its perceived oncologic safety in many women and to reports of superior aesthetic results with this technique. Despite the increased utilization of NSM, few studies have evaluated the impact of NSM on PROs and complications in women undergoing immediate IBBR. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium study, a multicenter, prospective cohort study that recruited patients between February 2012 and July 2015. The primary aim of this study was to compare PROs as measured by BREAST-Q scores between women who underwent IBBR after NSM versus SNR. The secondary aim was to compare complication rates. Mixed-effects regression models controlled for demographic and clinical covariates. Results: Of the 600 women in the study, 286 (47.7%) underwent NSM. After controlling for baseline patient characteristics, we found no significant differences in satisfaction with breast, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being or sexual well-being between women undergoing NSM versus SNR. Mastectomy type was not a significant predictor of complications or reconstructive failure. Conclusions: Despite reports of superior aesthetics for NSM over simple mastectomy with nipple reconstruction in immediate IBBR, we found no significant differences at 2 years after reconstruction in patient satisfaction, quality-of-life, or complication rates.