BACKGROUND: A lower abdominal midline scar is known to restrict the amount of tissue that can be included in a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. However, reconstructive demands have occasionally led us to include substantial territory beyond the scar. The purpose of this study is to review our experience with such flaps and to determine whether a meaningful amount of tissue can be reliably harvested across a midline scar. METHODS: Within a series of 125 DIEP flaps harvested across the entire lower abdomen (zones I-IV), 11 contained a midline scar. These 11 cases were compared with the remaining 114 in terms of (1) the amount of tissue beyond the scar that could be retained with the flap based on intraoperative assessment of vascularity and (2) postoperative complications. RESULTS: A significantly smaller percentage of the flap volume could be retained in scarred abdomens (70% of the harvested ellipse [ie, 20% beyond the midline]) versus unscarred abdomens (83%; P = 0.01). Complications were more frequent in the flaps with scars (55% vs. 25%; P = 0.04), although most of these complications were easily manageable and acceptable outcomes were achieved in all 11 cases. CONCLUSION: The rate of complications is significantly higher when tissue across a midline scar is included in a DIEP flap. However, in our experience, these complications are relatively mild, and in most cases, a substantial amount of tissue beyond the midline can be used, thereby increasing the volume available for reconstruction without resorting to dual-supply procedures.
BACKGROUND: A lower abdominal midline scar is known to restrict the amount of tissue that can be included in a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. However, reconstructive demands have occasionally led us to include substantial territory beyond the scar. The purpose of this study is to review our experience with such flaps and to determine whether a meaningful amount of tissue can be reliably harvested across a midline scar. METHODS: Within a series of 125 DIEP flaps harvested across the entire lower abdomen (zones I-IV), 11 contained a midline scar. These 11 cases were compared with the remaining 114 in terms of (1) the amount of tissue beyond the scar that could be retained with the flap based on intraoperative assessment of vascularity and (2) postoperative complications. RESULTS: A significantly smaller percentage of the flap volume could be retained in scarred abdomens (70% of the harvested ellipse [ie, 20% beyond the midline]) versus unscarred abdomens (83%; P = 0.01). Complications were more frequent in the flaps with scars (55% vs. 25%; P = 0.04), although most of these complications were easily manageable and acceptable outcomes were achieved in all 11 cases. CONCLUSION: The rate of complications is significantly higher when tissue across a midline scar is included in a DIEP flap. However, in our experience, these complications are relatively mild, and in most cases, a substantial amount of tissue beyond the midline can be used, thereby increasing the volume available for reconstruction without resorting to dual-supply procedures.
Authors: Manuel Robustillo; Luis Parra Pont; Georgios Pafitanis; Pedro Ciudad; Daniel Grandes; Israel Iglesias Journal: Indian J Plast Surg Date: 2018 Jan-Apr