A balance between breast reconstruction and amputation, Goldilock mastectomy
https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2025-21-1-44-55
Abstract
Background. Goldilocks mastectomy is an innovative surgical technique developed for patients with breast cancer who are looking for a balance between oncologically safe tumor removal and an optimal final aesthetic result.
Aim. To perform an optimal type of reconstruction in overweight patients with serious comorbidities who have abandoned the standard options for restoring the shape of the breast by preserving a de-epidermized lower flap during mastectomy.
Materials and methods. This study included 22 patients (31 Goldilocks mastectomy) aged 31 to 75 years diagnosed with breast cancer who received treatment from June 2023 to November 2024 at the N.N. Petrov Research Institute of Oncology. The average body mass index was 29.69 ± 3.92 kg/m2. Obesity was diagnosed in 86.4 % (19/22) of cases. All patients had 2 or 3 degrees of mammary gland ptosis.
Results. In 59.1 % (13/22) of cases patients underwent unilateral Goldilocks mastectomies, in 40.9 % (9/22) – bilateral operations using this technique. In 16 patients (72.7 %) the nipple-areolar complex was preserved. The overall complication rate was 12.9 % (4/31). The patients noted that the final subjective perception of the treatment results exceeded the expectations of the performed surgical intervention.
Conclusion. Breast reconstruction in overweight patients can be performed in various ways. Based on the experience of the N.N. Petrov Research Institute of Oncology and the results of this study, Goldilocks mastectomy is the best reconstruction option for patients with high body mass index or ptosis of the mammary glands, as well as concomitant diseases. This technique allows the surgeon to remove breast tissue within the anterior and posterior leaves of the superficial fascia, create additional volume using a de-epidermized flap, which preserves oncological safety and improves the aesthetic result.
About the Authors
E. K. ZhiltsovaRussian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
P. V. Krivorotko
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
D. G. Ulrikh
Russian Federation
Darya Glebovna Ulrikh
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
47 Piskarevskiy Prospekt, Saint Petersburg 195067
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
Ya. I. Bondarchuk
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
U. S. Kalishevich
Russian Federation
2 Litovskaya St., Saint Petersburg 194100
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
V. E. Levchenko
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
D. A. Enaldieva
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
N. S. Amirov
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. V. Solomakhina
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
V. V. Mortada
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
R. S. Pesotskiy
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
K. Yu. Zernov
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. S. Emelyanov
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
T. T. Tabagua
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
L. P. Gigolaeva
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. V. Komyakhov
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
K. S. Nikolaev
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
S. S. Yereshchenko
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
V. F. Semiglazov
Russian Federation
68 Leningradskaya St., Pesochnyy Settlement, Saint Petersburg 197758
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
References
1. Tong C.W., Cohen-Hallaleh R. Goldilocks mastectomy: The middle road option for obese breast cancer patients. Cureus 2023;15(12):e50362. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50362
2. Cassileth L.B., Killeen K.L., Richardson H.H. SWIM flap: Skinsparing, Wise pattern, internal mammary perforator breast reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 2020;230(5):e21–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.015
3. Richardson H., Aronowitz J.A. Goldilocks mastectomy with bilateral in situ nipple preservation via dermal pedicle. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6(4):e1748. DOI: 10.1097/gox.0000000000001748
4. Richardson H., Ma G. The Goldilocks mastectomy. Int J Surg 2012;10(9):522–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.08.003
5. Panayi A.C., Agha R.A., Sieber B.A., Orgill D.P. Impact of obesity on outcomes in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018;34(05):363–75. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1627449
6. Pitanguy I. Surgical treatment of breast hypertrophy. Brit J Plast Surg 1967;20:78–85. DOI: 10.1016/s0007-1226(67)80009-2
7. De la Cruz Ku G., Karamchandani M., Chambergo-Michilot D. et al. Does breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy have a better survival than mastectomy? A meta-analysis of more than 1,500,000 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2022;29(10):6163–88. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12133-8
8. Ratosa I., Plavc G., Pislar N. Improved survival after breastconserving therapy compared with mastectomy in stage I–IIA breast cancer. Cancers 2021;13(16):4044. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13164044
9. Lazow S.P., Riba L., Alapati A., James T. A. Comparison of breast‐ conserving therapy vs mastectomy in women under age 40: National trends and potential survival implications. Breast 2019;25(4):578–84. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13293
10. Mota B.S., Bevilacqua J.L.B., Barrett J. et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;3(3):CD010993. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010993.pub2
11. Yee F.Z.Y., Lim E.W., Seet Y.L.M. et al. Modified chest wall lateral intercostal artery perforator (MCW-LICAP) flap: A versatile flap in the era of oncoplastic breast surgery. ANZ J Surg 2023;93(1–2): 294–301. DOI: 10.1111/ans.18216
12. Cevallos P., Berry C., Lipman K.J. et al. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy in patients with obesity: A narrative review. Ann Translat Med 2023;11(12):413. DOI: 10.21037/atm-23-1599
13. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Procedural Statistics Release. American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2023. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/news/Statistics/2022/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2022.pdf.
14. Zugasti A., Hontanilla B. The impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on immediate implant-based breast reconstruction surgical and satisfaction outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021;9(11):e3910. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003910
15. Jagsi R., Momoh A.O., Qi J. et al. Impact of radiotherapy on complications and patient-reported outcomes after breast reconstruction. JNCI 2018;110(2):157–65. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx148
16. Von Glinski M., Holler N., Kümmel S. et al. Autologous vs. implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-and nipple-sparing mastectomy – a deeper insight considering surgical and patientreported outcomes. Front Surg 2022;9:903734. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.903734
17. Chaudhry A., Oliver J.D., Vyas K.S. et al. Outcomes analysis of Goldilocks mastectomy and breast reconstruction: A single institution experience of 96 cases. J Surg Oncol 2019;119(8):1047–52. DOI: 10.1002/jso.25465
18. Srinivasa D.R., Clemens M.W., Qi J. et al. Obesity and breast reconstruction: complications and patient-reported outcomes in a multicenter, prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;145(3):481e–90e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006543
19. Bustos S.S., Nguyen M.D., Harless C.A. et al. The Goldilocks procedure with and without implant-based immediate breast reconstruction in obese patients: The Mayo Clinic experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;148(4):703–16. Erratum in: Plast Reconstr Surg 2022;149(2):531. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008965
20. Wang J., Ghanouni A., Losken A. et al. Monitoring for breast cancer recurrence following Goldilocks breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2024;92(6S):S432–6. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003952
Review
For citations:
Zhiltsova E.K., Krivorotko P.V., Ulrikh D.G., Bondarchuk Ya.I., Kalishevich U.S., Levchenko V.E., Enaldieva D.A., Amirov N.S., Solomakhina A.V., Mortada V.V., Pesotskiy R.S., Zernov K.Yu., Emelyanov A.S., Tabagua T.T., Gigolaeva L.P., Komyakhov A.V., Nikolaev K.S., Yereshchenko S.S., Semiglazov V.F. A balance between breast reconstruction and amputation, Goldilock mastectomy. Tumors of female reproductive system. 2025;21(1):44-55. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2025-21-1-44-55