INTRODUCTION: Pedicled perforator flaps have not been widely described for the breast. The aim of this study is to report our clinical experience with pedicled perforator flaps in breast reconstruction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between May 2000 and May 2003, pedicled perforator flaps were used in 31 patients. The indications were immediate partial breast reconstruction and thoracic reconstruction for carcinomatous mastitis or tumour recurrence. Perforators were identified by Doppler preoperatively. The Doppler-located thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) or another perforator such as the intercostal artery perforator (ICAP) was looked for. If the perforators had good calibers, the flaps were then based solely on these perforators. If the perforators were tiny but pulsating, the TDAP flap was harvested as a muscle-sparing latissimus dorsi type I (MS-LD I) with a small piece of muscle (4x2 cm) included to protect the perforators. If the perforators were not-pulsating, a larger segment of the LD muscle was incorporated to include the maximum of perforators (MS-LD II flap). The nerve that innervates the rest of the LD muscle was always spared. If most of the LD was included in the flap, the flap was then classified as MS-LD III. RESULTS: The mean flap dimensions were 20x8 cm. Using this algorithm, the TDAP flap was harvested in 18 cases and the ICAP flap in three cases. In addition, there were 10 MS-LD flaps with a variable amount of muscle. In addition, one parascapular flap was dissected. A successful flap transfer was achieved in all but three patients, in whom limited partial necrosis occurred. Seroma was not encountered at the donor sites of the perforator flaps (0%) compared to four (40%) after a MS-LD flap. CONCLUSION: Our results show that pedicled perforator flaps are additional options for breast surgery and that they may be used whenever an adequate perforator can be found. This technique is safe and reliable if the algorithm described is used when choosing a flap.
INTRODUCTION: Pedicled perforator flaps have not been widely described for the breast. The aim of this study is to report our clinical experience with pedicled perforator flaps in breast reconstruction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between May 2000 and May 2003, pedicled perforator flaps were used in 31 patients. The indications were immediate partial breast reconstruction and thoracic reconstruction for carcinomatous mastitis or tumour recurrence. Perforators were identified by Doppler preoperatively. The Doppler-located thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) or another perforator such as the intercostal artery perforator (ICAP) was looked for. If the perforators had good calibers, the flaps were then based solely on these perforators. If the perforators were tiny but pulsating, the TDAP flap was harvested as a muscle-sparing latissimus dorsi type I (MS-LD I) with a small piece of muscle (4x2 cm) included to protect the perforators. If the perforators were not-pulsating, a larger segment of the LD muscle was incorporated to include the maximum of perforators (MS-LD II flap). The nerve that innervates the rest of the LD muscle was always spared. If most of the LD was included in the flap, the flap was then classified as MS-LD III. RESULTS: The mean flap dimensions were 20x8 cm. Using this algorithm, the TDAP flap was harvested in 18 cases and the ICAP flap in three cases. In addition, there were 10 MS-LD flaps with a variable amount of muscle. In addition, one parascapular flap was dissected. A successful flap transfer was achieved in all but three patients, in whom limited partial necrosis occurred. Seroma was not encountered at the donor sites of the perforator flaps (0%) compared to four (40%) after a MS-LD flap. CONCLUSION: Our results show that pedicled perforator flaps are additional options for breast surgery and that they may be used whenever an adequate perforator can be found. This technique is safe and reliable if the algorithm described is used when choosing a flap.