Literature DB >> 31461004

Comparative Analysis of Single versus Stacked Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Center Experience.

Nicholas T Haddock1, Min-Jeong Cho1, Sumeet S Teotia1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As breast reconstructive microsurgeons increase their available flap techniques with experience, the need for stacked and multiple flaps may generate an improved aesthetic outcome. The authors present their institutional experience of using single versus stacked free flap breast reconstruction.
METHODS: ONE THOUSAND SEVENTY: flaps were performed on 509 patients from 2010 to 2018 by two senior surgeons at a single university hospital. Three hundred eighty-eight flaps were either stacked profunda artery perforator (PAP) flaps, four-flap flaps [bilateral PAP plus bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap], or double-pedicle DIEP/superficial inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Six hundred eighty-two flaps were either unilateral or bilateral DIEP or PAP flap (one flap per breast). Demographics, patient comorbidities, and flap complications were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Of the 509 patients, 359 underwent single DIEP or PAP flap (one flap per breast) and 150 patients underwent stacked free flaps. The stacked flap group had statistically lower body mass index, higher rates of radiation therapy, longer procedure time, smaller flaps, higher deep venous thrombosis rates, and higher take-back rates compared with the single flap group. There were no statistical differences in the rates of flap loss (2.2 percent in stacked flaps versus 1.1 percent in single flaps), wound complication, hematoma, or pulmonary embolism.
CONCLUSIONS: Autologous breast reconstruction is the gold standard for natural and durable breast reconstruction, often giving superior aesthetic outcomes and higher patient satisfaction. However, the true success of autologous breast reconstruction is limited to the amount of tissue available to provide total breast reconstruction. This study shows that stacked flap breast reconstruction is safe and has similar complication rates as single-flap breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31461004     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005906

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


  6 in total

1.  Comparisons Between Normal Body Mass Index and Overweight Patients Who Underwent Unilateral Microsurgical Breast Reconstructions.

Authors:  Ming-Huei Cheng; Satomi Koide; Courtney Chen; Yi-Ling Lin
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Abdominal Flap-based Breast Reconstruction versus Abdominoplasty: The Impact of Surgical Procedure on Scar Location.

Authors:  Alexander Y Li; Arash Momeni
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-09-24

3.  The Reconstruction after a Giant Phyllodes Tumor Resection Using a DIEP Flap.

Authors:  Yuki Tsuruta; Ryo Karakawa; Koya Majima; Satoru Yamamoto; Tomoyoshi Shibata; Hidehiko Yoshimatsu; Hiroki Miyashita; Kenta Tanakura; Tomoyuki Yano
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-04-27

4.  Use of the Profunda Femoris Artery Perforator Flap for Reconstruction after Sarcoma Resection.

Authors:  Ryo Karakawa; Hidehiko Yoshimatsu; Erisa Maeda; Tomoyoshi Shibata; Kenta Tanakura; Yukiko Kuramoto; Hiroki Miyashita; Tomoyuki Yano
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-12-17

5.  Efficient DIEP Flap: Bilateral Breast Reconstruction in Less Than Four Hours.

Authors:  Nicholas T Haddock; Sumeet S Teotia
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-09-07

6.  BREAST-Q and Donor Site Comparison in Bilateral Stacked Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Nicholas T Haddock; Ryan M Dickey; Kevin Perez; Ricardo Garza; Yulun Liu; Sumeet S Teotia
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-07-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.