Literature DB >> 15692347

Breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap or the muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM flap: is there a difference?

Maurice Y Nahabedian1, Theodore Tsangaris, Bahram Momen.   

Abstract

The advantages of breast reconstruction using the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and the muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap (MS-2) are well recognized. Both techniques optimize abdominal function by maintaining the vascularity, innervation, and continuity of the rectus abdominis muscle. The purpose of this study was to compare these two methods of breast reconstruction and determine whether there is a difference in outcome. The study considered 177 women who have had breast reconstruction using muscle-sparing flaps over a 4-year period. This includes 89 women who had an MS-2 free TRAM flap procedure, of which 65 were unilateral and 24 were bilateral, and 88 women who had a DIEP flap procedure, of which 66 were unilateral and 22 were bilateral. The total number of flaps was 223. Mean follow-up was 23 months (range, 3 to 49 months). For all MS-2 free TRAM flaps (n = 113), outcome included fat necrosis in eight (7.1 percent), venous congestion in three (2.7 percent), and total necrosis in two (1.8 percent). For the women who had an MS-2 free TRAM flap, an abdominal bulge occurred in three women (4.6 percent) after unilateral reconstruction and in five women (21 percent) after bilateral reconstruction. The ability to perform sit-ups was noted in 63 women (97 percent) after unilateral reconstruction and 20 women (83 percent) after bilateral reconstruction. For all DIEP flaps (n = 110), outcome included fat necrosis in seven (6.4 percent), venous congestion in five (4.5 percent), and total necrosis in three (2.7 percent) patients. For the women who had DIEP flap reconstruction, an abdominal bulge occurred in one woman (1.5 percent) after unilateral reconstruction and in one woman (4.5 percent) after bilateral reconstruction. The ability to perform sit-ups was noted in all women after unilateral reconstruction and in 21 women (95 percent) after bilateral reconstruction. These results demonstrate that there are no significant differences in fat necrosis, venous congestion, or flap necrosis after DIEP or MS-2 free TRAM flap reconstruction. The percentage of women who are able to perform sit-ups and the percentage of women who did not develop a postoperative abdominal bulge is increased after DIEP flap reconstruction; however, this difference is not statistically significant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15692347     DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000149404.57087.8e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  27 in total

1.  A comparison of the superficial inferior epigastric artery flap and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Achilleas Thoma; Leigh Jansen; Sheila Sprague; Eric Duku P Stat
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2008

2.  Function and Strength after Free Abdominally Based Breast Reconstruction: A 10-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Michael G Tecci; Michael A Lanni; John P Fischer; Joshua Fosnot; Jesse C Selber; Liza C Wu; Joseph M Serletti
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 3.  Choice of flaps for breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Masahiro Tachi; Atsushi Yamada
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Breast reconstruction with autologous tissue following mastectomy.

Authors:  Hr Teymouri; S Stergioula; M Eder; L Kovacs; E Biemer; Na Papadopulos
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.471

5.  Conservative mastectomies and Immediate-DElayed AutoLogous (IDEAL) breast reconstruction: the DIEP flap.

Authors:  Maximilian Otte; Carolin Nestle-Krämling; Sonia Fertsch; Mazen Hagouan; Beatrix Munder; Philip Richrath; Peter Stambera; Alina Abu-Ghazaleh; Christoph Andree
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-02

6.  [Abdominal hernias resulting from abdominal flap harvest].

Authors:  G Germann; M Sauerbier; F Unglaub
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 7.  Abdominal perforator vs. muscle sparing flaps for breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Paris D Butler; Liza C Wu
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-06

Review 8.  Morbidity of the Donor Site and Complication Rates of Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Abdominal Flaps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Hatan Mortada; Taif Fawaz AlNojaidi; Razan AlRabah; Yousif Almohammadi; Raghad AlKhashan; Hattan Aljaaly
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 2.269

Review 9.  A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Complications Related to Breast Reconstruction Using Different Skin Flaps After Breast Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Jiahua Xing; Ziqi Jia; Yichi Xu; Muzi Chen; Youbai Chen; Yan Han
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 2.708

10.  Indocyanine green-based fluorescent angiography in breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Matthew Griffiths; Michael P Chae; Warren Matthew Rozen
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.