Literature DB >> 26267400

Comparison of Outcomes following Autologous Breast Reconstruction Using the DIEP and Pedicled TRAM Flaps: A 12-Year Clinical Retrospective Study and Literature Review.

Aaron D C Knox1,2, Adelyn L Ho1,2, Leslie Leung1,2, A Yashar Tashakkor1,2, Peter A Lennox1,2, Nancy Van Laeken1,2, Sheina A Macadam1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are few studies that compare the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap to the pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (pTRAM) flap for use in reconstructive breast surgery. The authors examined four factors that aid in decision-making: donor-site morbidity, need for surgery related to abdominal morbidity, operative time, and complications.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients undergoing breast reconstruction using the DIEP or pTRAM flap at the University of British Columbia between 2002 and 2013. The authors compared operative time and abdomen- and flap-related complications in both groups.
RESULTS: Reconstruction was performed in 507 patients; 25.6 percent received DIEP flaps (n = 183 breasts) and 74.4 percent underwent pTRAM flap surgery (n = 444 breasts). Pedicled TRAM flap patients were more likely to require abdominal closure with mesh (44.2 percent versus 8.1 percent; p < 0.001); 21.2 percent of them had a postoperative bulge and/or hernia versus 3.1 percent of DIEP flap patients; and 12.7 percent of pTRAM flap patients required surgery for hernia/bulge. Controlling for confounders, there were five times the odds of a hernia/bulge in the pTRAM flap group. DIEP flap surgery was 234 minutes longer than pTRAM flap surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of the pTRAM flap may be offset by the need to correct abdominal wall complications. DIEP flap reconstruction had lower donor complications but increased operative time. A cost analysis is needed to determine the most economical procedure. CLINCIAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26267400     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001747

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


  24 in total

1.  Closed incision negative pressure therapy following abdominoplasty after breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps.

Authors:  Chien-Liang Fang; Chih-Hsuan Changchien; Ming-Shan Chen; Chin-Hao Hsu; Chong-Bin Tsai
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.315

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

3.  Comparison of 2-Year Complication Rates Among Common Techniques for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Katelyn G Bennett; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 14.766

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

Review 5.  Versatility of Free Cutaneous Flaps for Upper Extremity Soft Tissue Reconstruction.

Authors:  Howard D Wang; Jose C Alonso-Escalante; Brian H Cho; Ramon A DeJesus
Journal:  J Hand Microsurg       Date:  2017-06-27

6.  Goal-directed fluid therapy in autologous breast reconstruction results in less fluid and more vasopressor administration without outcome compromise.

Authors:  Thais O Polanco; Meghana G Shamsunder; Madeleine E V Hicks; Kenneth P Seier; Kay See Tan; Sabine Oskar; Joseph H Dayan; Joseph J Disa; Babak J Mehrara; Robert J Allen; Jonas A Nelson; Anoushka M Afonso
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 3.022

7.  Breast reconstruction with single-pedicle TRAM flap in breast cancer patients with low midline abdominal scar.

Authors:  Jun-Dong Wu; Wen-He Huang; Si-Qi Qiu; Li-Fang He; Cui-Ping Guo; Yong-Qu Zhang; Fan Zhang; Guo-Jun Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  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

9.  Considering the Optimal Timing of Breast Reconstruction With Abdominal Flaps With Adjuvant Irradiation in 370 Consecutive Pedicled Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap and Free Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Performed in a Chinese Oncology Center: Is There a Significant Difference Between Immediate and Delayed?

Authors:  Shanshan He; Jian Yin; Geoffrey L Robb; Jingyan Sun; Xuehui Zhang; Haixin Li; Jing Liu; Chunyong Han
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.539

10.  Viability of transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap treated with photobiomodulation and therapeutic ultrasound: an experimental model.

Authors:  Jaquelini Betta Canever; Laís Coan Fontanela; Ketlyn Germann Hendler; Aline Vieceli; Rafael Inácio Barbosa; Heloyse Uliam Kuriki; Aderbal Silva Aguiar Júnior; Laís Mara Siqueira das Neves; Marisa de Cássia Registro Fonseca; Alexandre Marcio Marcolino
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 3.161

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.