Delayed Mastopexy Following Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy: A Case-Control Study to Evaluate Safety and Versatility of the Central Mound Technique.

[INTRODUCTION] Breast remodeling following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiation therapy (RT) is challenging and often burdened by complications due to irradiated tissue atrophy. The authors present a case-control study to compare the central mound mastopexy (CMM) to more conventional techniques, applying it to different patterns of skin excision.

[METHODS] A variation of the original central mound technique is presented separately addressing glandular and cutaneous deformities. Between 2012 and 2018, 17 consecutive patients presenting defects following unilateral BCS and RT underwent breast remodeling with CMM technique. Immediate and long-term complications together with patient-reported outcomes were evaluated and compared to a matched control group of sixteen patients who underwent superior pedicle mammoplasty. Two independent plastic surgeons reviewed pre- and postoperative photographs and rated the cosmetic outcomes on a visual analog scale from 1 to 5.

[RESULTS] In the study group, different patterns of skin excision, i.e., inverted-T pattern (41.2%), circumareolar (23.5%), skin-sparing type V (17.65%), omega (11.77%), and J (5.88%), were used to correct various breast deformities, and a decisional algorithm was developed. No major complications were registered. Retraction recurrence rate was higher in the control group (p = 0.037). Cosmetic results were considered more satisfying in the CMM group by both patients (4.18 vs 3.00, p<0.001) and surgeons (4.06 vs 2.69, p=0.001).

[CONCLUSIONS] The CMM technique is an advanced approach that addresses breast remodeling after BCS-RT surgery yielding reliable results. Following our algorithm, several patterns of skin excision, tailored to pre-existing scars, can be considered and safely performed.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .