Moustapha Hamdi1, Mikko Larsen2, Barbara Craggs2, Bert Vanmierlo2, Assaf Zeltzer2. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brussels University Hospital, Vrij Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: moustapha.hamdi@uzbrussel.be. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brussels University Hospital, Vrij Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Subcostal scars pose a risk of upper abdominal flap ischaemia when raising a free abdominal flap. The aim of this study was to describe a clinical approach to increase flap reliability and donor site healing in the presence of transverse abdominal scars while harvesting lower abdominal free flaps. METHODS: A total of 11 patients who had subcostal scars and one who had an extended subcostal scar (rooftop or chevron incision) underwent free abdominal flaps for breast reconstruction. Preoperative radiological imaging was used to evaluate the blood supply to the planned flaps. A classification of clinical approaches (I-IV) was used. When the cranial (the abdominal closure) flap width was equal to or greater than half length, a caudal (the breast) flap could safely be harvested (Type I); if not, the cranial flap was enlarged by more caudal flap planning (Type II), an oblique design of the free flap (Type III) or by lowering the free flap marking more distally (Type IV) with a sparing of the peri-umbilical perforators to preserve blood supply to the caudal (abdominal closure) flap. RESULTS: Unilateral free deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flaps were successfully harvested in eight and two cases, respectively. In two cases, a bipedicled DIEP/SIEA flap was harvested for unilateral breast reconstruction. Slight abdominal wound slough occurred in one patient; however, no ischaemia resulted in flaps or at donor sites. CONCLUSIONS: Using a pragmatic approach to flap design, based on clinical classification, we have found that both flap and donor site morbidity can be avoided in patients who have previous upper abdominal scars. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Therapeutic.
PURPOSE: Subcostal scars pose a risk of upper abdominal flap ischaemia when raising a free abdominal flap. The aim of this study was to describe a clinical approach to increase flap reliability and donor site healing in the presence of transverse abdominal scars while harvesting lower abdominal free flaps. METHODS: A total of 11 patients who had subcostal scars and one who had an extended subcostal scar (rooftop or chevron incision) underwent free abdominal flaps for breast reconstruction. Preoperative radiological imaging was used to evaluate the blood supply to the planned flaps. A classification of clinical approaches (I-IV) was used. When the cranial (the abdominal closure) flap width was equal to or greater than half length, a caudal (the breast) flap could safely be harvested (Type I); if not, the cranial flap was enlarged by more caudal flap planning (Type II), an oblique design of the free flap (Type III) or by lowering the free flap marking more distally (Type IV) with a sparing of the peri-umbilical perforators to preserve blood supply to the caudal (abdominal closure) flap. RESULTS: Unilateral free deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flaps were successfully harvested in eight and two cases, respectively. In two cases, a bipedicled DIEP/SIEA flap was harvested for unilateral breast reconstruction. Slight abdominal wound slough occurred in one patient; however, no ischaemia resulted in flaps or at donor sites. CONCLUSIONS: Using a pragmatic approach to flap design, based on clinical classification, we have found that both flap and donor site morbidity can be avoided in patients who have previous upper abdominal scars. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Therapeutic.
Authors: Manuel Robustillo; Luis Parra Pont; Georgios Pafitanis; Pedro Ciudad; Daniel Grandes; Israel Iglesias Journal: Indian J Plast Surg Date: 2018 Jan-Apr