Literature DB >> 21042098

A Comparison between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in breast reconstruction: a single surgeon's recent experience.

Jonas A Nelson1, Yifan Guo, Seema S Sonnad, David W Low, Steven J Kovach, Liza C Wu, Joseph M Serletti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Discussions of abdominal donor-site morbidity and risk of flap loss continue to surround free flap breast reconstruction. The authors performed a head-to-head comparison of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps performed by a single senior surgeon at a single institution.
METHODS: The senior author's (J.M.S.) recent experience with DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps between July of 2006 and July of 2008 was reviewed retrospectively. The choice of flap was dictated by an intraoperative algorithm based on number, size, and location of perforator vessels. Variables assessed included intraoperative and postoperative complications. Three groups were analyzed: DIEP reconstructions, muscle-sparing free TRAM reconstructions, and bilateral reconstructions in which one of each flap type was performed.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients underwent 123 muscle-sparing free TRAM flap reconstructions, 53 patients underwent 71 DIEP flap reconstructions, and 31 patients underwent bilateral reconstruction with one DIEP and one muscle-sparing free TRAM flap. There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications or in minor postoperative complications. There was, however, a significant increase in total major postoperative complications in the DIEP study group (DIEP=3.9 percent, muscle-sparing free TRAM=0 percent, p=0.03). No significant difference was noted in hernia formation (DIEP=0, muscle-sparing free TRAM=4, p=0.15).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that both of these flaps may be reliably performed with an extremely low risk of complications. The choice of flap should be made intraoperatively, based on anatomic findings on a patient-by-patient basis, so as to optimize flap survivability while minimizing donor-site morbidity to the greatest extent possible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21042098     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ef8b20

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


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Comparison of Four Abdominally Based Autologous Reconstruction Methods.

Authors:  Sheina A Macadam; Toni Zhong; Katie Weichman; Michael Papsdorf; Peter A Lennox; Alexes Hazen; Evan Matros; Joseph Disa; Babak Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 3.  Abdominal perforator vs. muscle sparing flaps for breast reconstruction.

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

Review 4.  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

5.  An Appraisal of Internal Mammary Artery Perforators as Recipient Vessels in Microvascular Breast Reconstruction-An Analysis of 515 Consecutive Cases.

Authors:  Felix H Vollbach; Christoph D Heitmann; Hisham Fansa
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-12-13

6.  Determining the Trimming Layer in Breast Reconstruction with a Free TRAM Flap Using Intraoperative Video-angiography.

Authors:  Sang Keon Lee; Dong Won Lee; Dae Hyun Lew; Seung Yong Song
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-03-13

7.  Myth-Busting the DIEP Flap and an Introduction to the Abdominal Perforator Exchange (APEX) Breast Reconstruction Technique: A Single-Surgeon Retrospective Review.

Authors:  Frank J DellaCroce; Hannah C DellaCroce; Craig A Blum; Scott K Sullivan; Christopher G Trahan; M Whitten Wise; Irena G Brates
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction without Microsurgery Fellowship Training.

Authors:  Hakan Orbay; Brittany K Busse; Thomas R Stevenson; Howard T Wang; David E Sahar
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2015-08-10

9.  The impact of perforator number on deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Ritwik Grover; Jonas A Nelson; John P Fischer; Stephen J Kovach; Joseph M Serletti; Liza C Wu
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2014-01-13

10.  Breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps.

Authors:  J Cubitt; Z Barber; A A Khan; M Tyler
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.891

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.