BACKGROUND: One presumed advantage of the free deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap over the free muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap is decreased donor-site morbidity. The purpose of this study was to compare the donor-site morbidity and functional outcomes in women who underwent free muscle-sparing TRAM flap or free DIEP flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: All patients who underwent breast reconstruction using a free muscle-sparing TRAM flap or a free DIEP flap performed by the two senior authors at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1999 and 2003 were included in the study. The authors conducted a chart review to obtain demographic data and information regarding flap-related complications and donor-site complications. Each living patient was sent a 12-item questionnaire to elicit her perceptions about donor-site outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four patient charts were reviewed (203 flaps). Muscle-sparing TRAM flaps were used in 124 patients (98 unilateral and 26 bilateral). DIEP flaps were used in 35 patients (27 unilateral and eight bilateral). In five bilateral breast reconstructions, a muscle-sparing TRAM flap was used for one side and a DIEP flap was used for the other side. There was no significant difference in flap-related complications or donor-site morbidity between the free muscle-sparing TRAM and free DIEP flaps. Eighty-nine of 159 patients (56 percent) responded to the questionnaire; results showed no significant difference in patient-perceived abdominal function after free muscle-sparing TRAM flaps and free DIEP flaps. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' experience, there is no significant difference in flap-related complications or donor-site morbidity between the free muscle-sparing TRAM flap and the free DIEP flap. Thus, the authors advocate using the most expeditious and reliable flap based on the vascular anatomy of the DIEP system.
BACKGROUND: One presumed advantage of the free deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap over the free muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap is decreased donor-site morbidity. The purpose of this study was to compare the donor-site morbidity and functional outcomes in women who underwent free muscle-sparing TRAM flap or free DIEP flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: All patients who underwent breast reconstruction using a free muscle-sparing TRAM flap or a free DIEP flap performed by the two senior authors at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1999 and 2003 were included in the study. The authors conducted a chart review to obtain demographic data and information regarding flap-related complications and donor-site complications. Each living patient was sent a 12-item questionnaire to elicit her perceptions about donor-site outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four patient charts were reviewed (203 flaps). Muscle-sparing TRAM flaps were used in 124 patients (98 unilateral and 26 bilateral). DIEP flaps were used in 35 patients (27 unilateral and eight bilateral). In five bilateral breast reconstructions, a muscle-sparing TRAM flap was used for one side and a DIEP flap was used for the other side. There was no significant difference in flap-related complications or donor-site morbidity between the free muscle-sparing TRAM and free DIEP flaps. Eighty-nine of 159 patients (56 percent) responded to the questionnaire; results showed no significant difference in patient-perceived abdominal function after free muscle-sparing TRAM flaps and free DIEP flaps. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' experience, there is no significant difference in flap-related complications or donor-site morbidity between the free muscle-sparing TRAM flap and the free DIEP flap. Thus, the authors advocate using the most expeditious and reliable flap based on the vascular anatomy of the DIEP system.
Authors: Carla Stecco; Gian Paolo Azzena; Veronica Macchi; Andrea Porzionato; Astrid Behr; Anna Rambaldo; Cesare Tiengo; Raffaele De Caro Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: Stacy Tessler Lindau; Emily M Abramsohn; Shirley R Baron; Judith Florendo; Hope K Haefner; Anuja Jhingran; Vanessa Kennedy; Mukta K Krane; David M Kushner; Jennifer McComb; Diane F Merritt; Julie E Park; Amy Siston; Margaret Straub; Lauren Streicher Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jennifer H Choi; Jeffrey M Gimble; Kyongbum Lee; Kacey G Marra; J Peter Rubin; James J Yoo; Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic; David L Kaplan Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 6.389