BACKGROUND: Abdominal flap reconstruction is the most popular form of autologous breast reconstruction. The current study compared complications and patient-reported outcomes after pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), free TRAM, deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP), and superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flaps. METHODS: Patients undergoing abdominally based breast reconstruction at 11 centers were prospectively evaluated for abdominal donor-site and breast complications. Patient-reported outcomes were measured by the BREAST-Q and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System surveys. Mixed-effects regression models were used to assess the effects of procedure type on outcomes. RESULTS: Seven hundred twenty patients had 1-year follow-up and 587 had 2-year follow-up. Two years after reconstruction, SIEA compared with DIEP flaps were associated with a higher rate of donor-site complications (OR, 2.7; p = 0.001); however, SIEA flaps were associated with higher BREAST-Q abdominal physical well-being scores compared with DIEP flaps at 1 year (mean difference, 4.72, on a scale from 0 to 100; p = 0.053). This difference was not significant at 2 years. Abdominal physical well-being scores at 2 years postoperatively were lower in the pedicled TRAM flap group by 7.2 points (p = 0.006) compared with DIEP flaps and by 7.8 points (p = 0.03) compared with SIEA flaps, and in the free TRAM flap group, scores were lower by 4.9 points (p = 0.04) compared with DIEP flaps. Bilateral reconstruction had significantly lower abdominal physical well-being scores compared with unilateral reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Although all abdominally based flaps are viable breast reconstruction options, DIEP and SIEA flaps are associated with higher abdominal physical well-being than pedicled and free TRAM flaps. Although SIEA flaps offer the advantage of not violating the fascia, higher rates of donor-site complications may diminish patient satisfaction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
BACKGROUND: Abdominal flap reconstruction is the most popular form of autologous breast reconstruction. The current study compared complications and patient-reported outcomes after pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), free TRAM, deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP), and superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flaps. METHODS:Patients undergoing abdominally based breast reconstruction at 11 centers were prospectively evaluated for abdominal donor-site and breast complications. Patient-reported outcomes were measured by the BREAST-Q and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System surveys. Mixed-effects regression models were used to assess the effects of procedure type on outcomes. RESULTS: Seven hundred twenty patients had 1-year follow-up and 587 had 2-year follow-up. Two years after reconstruction, SIEA compared with DIEP flaps were associated with a higher rate of donor-site complications (OR, 2.7; p = 0.001); however, SIEA flaps were associated with higher BREAST-Q abdominal physical well-being scores compared with DIEP flaps at 1 year (mean difference, 4.72, on a scale from 0 to 100; p = 0.053). This difference was not significant at 2 years. Abdominal physical well-being scores at 2 years postoperatively were lower in the pedicled TRAM flap group by 7.2 points (p = 0.006) compared with DIEP flaps and by 7.8 points (p = 0.03) compared with SIEA flaps, and in the free TRAM flap group, scores were lower by 4.9 points (p = 0.04) compared with DIEP flaps. Bilateral reconstruction had significantly lower abdominal physical well-being scores compared with unilateral reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Although all abdominally based flaps are viable breast reconstruction options, DIEP and SIEA flaps are associated with higher abdominal physical well-being than pedicled and free TRAM flaps. Although SIEA flaps offer the advantage of not violating the fascia, higher rates of donor-site complications may diminish patient satisfaction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
Authors: Joanna C Mennie; Pari-Naz Mohanna; Joe M O'Donoghue; Richard Rainsbury; David A Cromwell Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Valeriy Shubinets; Justin P Fox; Jonathan R Sarik; Stephen J Kovach; John P Fischer Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.730
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
Authors: Edward I Chang; Eric I Chang; Miguel A Soto-Miranda; Hong Zhang; Naveed Nosrati; Geoffrey L Robb; David W Chang Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Toni Zhong; Christine B Novak; Shaghayegh Bagher; Saskia W M C Maass; Jing Zhang; Udi Arad; Anne C O'Neill; Kelly A Metcalfe; Stefan O P Hofer Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Patrick B Garvey; Edward W Buchel; Barbara A Pockaj; William J Casey; Richard J Gray; José L Hernández; Thomas D Samson Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Andrea L Pusic; Anne F Klassen; Amie M Scott; Jennifer A Klok; Peter G Cordeiro; Stefan J Cano Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Erin M Taylor; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic; Ji Qi; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Gretchen E Guldbrandsen; Yoon S Chun Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Patricia A Parker; Susan K Peterson; Yu Shen; Isabelle Bedrosian; Dalliah M Black; Alastair M Thompson; Jonathan C Nelson; Sarah M DeSnyder; Robert L Cook; Kelly K Hunt; Robert J Volk; Scott B Cantor; Wenli Dong; Abenaa M Brewster Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ankur Khajuria; Max Prokopenko; Max Greenfield; Oliver Smith; Andrea L Pusic; Afshin Mosahebi Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-10-28