Literature DB >> 17632336

Secondary operations of the anterior abdominal wall following microvascular breast reconstruction with the TRAM and DIEP flaps.

Maurice Y Nahabedian1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Secondary operations of the anterior abdominal wall following breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps are sometimes performed to improve outcome. The purpose of this study was to review a single surgeon's experience with secondary abdominal wall operations following breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps.
METHODS: Over a 7-year period, 330 women had microvascular breast reconstruction using abdominal flaps. Indications for secondary abdominal operations that were considered necessary included bulge, abdominal skin necrosis (wound), hematoma, neuroma, and seroma. Indications that were considered elective included lateral dog-ear scars and lipodystrophy. Mean follow-up time was 40 months (range, 3 to 84 months).
RESULTS: Secondary abdominal operations were performed in 59 women (17.9 percent). The cumulative number of indications was 64. The indications were considered necessary in 33 women (10 percent) and elective in 31 women (9.4 percent). Lower abdominal bulge was the most common necessary indication and was repaired in 9.3 percent of free TRAM flaps and 4.7 percent of DIEP flaps. Dog-ear scars were the most common elective indication and were revised in 29 women (8.8 percent). Neuromas of the anterior abdominal wall were diagnosed in three women (0.9 percent). Secondary procedures for indications with a low frequency included skin necrosis (n = 3), hematoma (n = 3), seroma (n = 1), and lipodystrophy (n = 2).
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of secondary procedures of the abdominal wall following microvascular breast reconstruction using abdominal flaps approximates 20 percent, with an equal distribution between necessary and elective procedures. Women considering breast reconstruction using a free TRAM or DIEP flap should be advised of these statistics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17632336     DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000267339.93859.1e

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Achieving ideal donor site aesthetics with autologous breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Maurice Y Nahabedian
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-04

Review 2.  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

3.  CASE REPORT Persistent Seromas in Abdominal Free Flap Donor Sites After Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Surgery: Case Reports and Literature Review.

Authors:  Abtin Sadeghi; Charles Malata
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2013-06-03

4.  Spontaneous rupture of abdominal wall after breast reconstruction using deep inferior epigastric perforator flap following mastectomy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Jun Iwabu; Tsutomu Namikawa; Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Kazune Fujisawa; Toyokazu Oki; Maho Ogawa; Natsuko Iwai; Akiko Yano; Motone Kuriyama; Takeki Sugimoto; Kazuhiro Hanazaki
Journal:  Surg Case Rep       Date:  2018-07-31

5.  The Rectus Abdominis Perforator Turndown Flap for Preserving Rectus Continuity: A DIEP Alternative?

Authors:  Warren M Rozen; Robert Phan; Marc A Seifman; Lisa Ellis; David J Hunter-Smith
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-01-25

6.  A comparative study for the rate of adverse outcomes in unilateral and bilateral abdominal flap breast reconstruction: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zheming Cao; Jiri Cao; Xiaoyang Pang; Wei Du; Panfeng Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.