BACKGROUND: The lumbar artery perforator flap is an alternative flap in breast reconstruction for those patients who are not eligible for a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEAP) flap. Shaping of this flap is easier compared with other flaps because of the quality of the lumbar fat and the gluteal extension. METHODS: Between October of 2010 and June of 2017, a total of 100 lumbar artery perforator free flap breast reconstructions were performed in 72 patients. Patient demographics, indications, flap specifics, and complications were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Twenty-eight bilateral and 44 unilateral breast reconstructions with a lumbar artery perforator flap were performed. Mean patient age was 48 years, and the average body mass index was 23.11 kg/m. The authors report 43 preventive mastectomies for elevated cancer risk with subsequent immediate reconstruction, 34 secondary reconstructions, and 14 tertiary reconstructions. Mean operative time was 7 hours 4 minutes, including the mastectomy in primary cases. Mean flap weight was 499 g (range, 77 to 1216 g) and mean follow-up time was 30 months. The revision rate was 22 percent and nine flaps were lost. CONCLUSIONS: The lumbar artery perforator flap is a valuable alternative to the DIEAP flap in breast reconstructive surgery. It is an excellent flap for BRCA-positive patients who are typically young and have limited excess tissue at the conventional donor sites. Despite higher revision rates compared with the DIEAP flap, the lumbar flap is superior in mimicking the shape and feel of native breast tissue. Scarring at the donor site remains a sore point but can be easily treated and used to an advantage to contour the flanks. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
BACKGROUND: The lumbar artery perforator flap is an alternative flap in breast reconstruction for those patients who are not eligible for a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEAP) flap. Shaping of this flap is easier compared with other flaps because of the quality of the lumbar fat and the gluteal extension. METHODS: Between October of 2010 and June of 2017, a total of 100 lumbar artery perforator free flap breast reconstructions were performed in 72 patients. Patient demographics, indications, flap specifics, and complications were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Twenty-eight bilateral and 44 unilateral breast reconstructions with a lumbar artery perforator flap were performed. Mean patient age was 48 years, and the average body mass index was 23.11 kg/m. The authors report 43 preventive mastectomies for elevated cancer risk with subsequent immediate reconstruction, 34 secondary reconstructions, and 14 tertiary reconstructions. Mean operative time was 7 hours 4 minutes, including the mastectomy in primary cases. Mean flap weight was 499 g (range, 77 to 1216 g) and mean follow-up time was 30 months. The revision rate was 22 percent and nine flaps were lost. CONCLUSIONS: The lumbar artery perforator flap is a valuable alternative to the DIEAP flap in breast reconstructive surgery. It is an excellent flap for BRCA-positive patients who are typically young and have limited excess tissue at the conventional donor sites. Despite higher revision rates compared with the DIEAP flap, the lumbar flap is superior in mimicking the shape and feel of native breast tissue. Scarring at the donor site remains a sore point but can be easily treated and used to an advantage to contour the flanks. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.