Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Impact of Perforator Number on Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction

  • Grover, Ritwik (Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) ;
  • Nelson, Jonas A. (Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) ;
  • Fischer, John P. (Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) ;
  • Kovach, Stephen J. (Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) ;
  • Serletti, Joseph M. (Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) ;
  • Wu, Liza C. (Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania)
  • Received : 2013.10.21
  • Accepted : 2013.12.03
  • Published : 2014.01.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background Perforator flaps minimize abdominal site morbidity during autologous breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the number of perforators harvested influences the overall deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap survival and flap-related complications. Methods A retrospective review was performed of all DIEP flaps performed at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from 2006 to 2011. The outcomes assessed included flap loss and major complications. We compared flaps by the number of total perforators (1-4) and then carried out a subgroup analysis comparing flaps with one perforator to flaps with multiple perforators. Lastly, we conducted a post-hoc analysis based on body mass index (BMI) categorization. Results Three hundred thirty-three patients underwent 395 DIEP flaps. No significant differences were noted in the flap loss rate or the overall complications across perforator groups. However, the subgroup analysis revealed significantly higher rates of fat necrosis in the case of one-perforator flaps than in the case of multiple-perforator flaps (10.2% vs. 3.1%, P=0.009). The post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase in the flap loss rate with increasing BMI (<30=2.0%, 30-34.9=3.1%, 35-39.9=3.1%, >40=42.9%, P<0.001) in the DIEP flaps, but no increase in fat necrosis. Conclusions This study demonstrates that the number of perforators does not impact the rate of flap survival. However, the rate of fat necrosis may be significantly higher in DIEP flaps based on a single perforator. Multiple perforators should be utilized if possible to decrease the risk of fat necrosis.

Keywords

References

  1. Sisco M, Du H, Warner JP, et al. Have we expanded the equitable delivery of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the new millennium? Evidence from the national cancer data base. J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:658-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.07.008
  2. Man LX, Selber JC, Serletti JM. Abdominal wall following free TRAM or DIEP flap reconstruction: a meta-analysis and critical review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:752-64. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31818b7533
  3. Garvey PB, Buchel EW, Pockaj BA, et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:1711-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000210679.77449.7d
  4. Selber JC, Nelson J, Fosnot J, et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: part I. unilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:1142-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f02520
  5. Selber JC, Fosnot J, Nelson J, et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: Part II. Bilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:1438-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ea42ed
  6. Nelson JA, Guo Y, Sonnad SS, et al. A Comparison between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in breast reconstruction: a single surgeon's recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:1428-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ef8b20
  7. Kroll SS. Free TRAM or DIEP flap: which to choose. Oper Tech Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;6:83-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-0949(99)80023-7
  8. Baumann DP, Lin HY, Chevray PM. Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:1335-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d4fb4a
  9. Chang DW, Wang B, Robb GL, et al. Effect of obesity on flap and donor-site complications in free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:1640-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200004050-00007
  10. Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Miller MJ, et al. The free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: one center's experience with 211 consecutive cases. Ann Plast Surg 1994;32:234-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199403000-00002
  11. Kroll SS. Fat necrosis in free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:576-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200009010-00008
  12. Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB, et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:1153-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000110328.47206.50
  13. Scheer AS, Novak CB, Neligan PC, et al. Complications associated with breast reconstruction using a perforator flap compared with a free TRAM flap. Ann Plast Surg 2006;56: 355-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000201549.83738.42
  14. Fischer JP, Sieber B, Nelson JA, et al. Comprehensive outcome and cost analysis of free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction: an experience with 1303 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:195-203. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318277856f
  15. Cleveland EC, Fischer JP, Nelson JA, et al. Optimizing the fascial closure: an analysis of 1261 abdominally based free flap reconstructions. Ann Plast Surg 2013;71:255-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e318286380e
  16. Rozen WM, Whitaker IS, Chubb D, et al. Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:2286-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f61c04
  17. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, et al. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2000. JAMA 2002; 288:1723-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.14.1723
  18. Jandali S, Nelson JA, Sonnad SS, et al. Breast reconstruction with free tissue transfer from the abdomen in the morbidly obese. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:2206-13. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182131c93
  19. Fischer JP, Nelson JA, Sieber B, et al. Free tissue transfer in the obese patient: an outcome and cost analysis in 1258 consecutive abdominally based reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:681e-92e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31828e2159
  20. Fischer JP, Cleveland EC, Nelson JA, et al. Breast reconstruction in the morbidly obese patient: assessment of 30-day complications using the 2005 to 2010 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data sets. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132:750-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31829fe33c

Cited by

  1. Concept of perforator flap and reconstruction using microsurgery vol.57, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2014.57.8.695
  2. Perforator Flap versus Conventional Flap vol.30, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.5.514
  3. Volumetric Planning Using Computed Tomographic Angiography Improves Clinical Outcomes in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction vol.137, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002045
  4. Reliable transfer of multiple perforator‐based pedicled flaps: Surgical technique and clinical outcomes vol.37, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.22427
  5. Comparison of a Small Central versus a Large Peripheral Perforator in a Rat Model of Extended Dorsal Three–Vascular Territory Perforator Flap vol.139, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002991
  6. Factors that predict deep inferior epigastric perforator flap donor site hernia and bulge vol.52, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656x.2018.1498790
  7. Optimizing Perforator Selection: A Multivariable Analysis of Predictors for Fat Necrosis and Abdominal Morbidity in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction vol.142, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004631
  8. Myth-Busting the DIEP Flap and an Introduction to the Abdominal Perforator Exchange (APEX) Breast Reconstruction Technique: A Single-Surgeon Retrospective Review vol.143, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005484
  9. Reply : Optimizing Perforator Selection vol.143, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005656
  10. Reply : Optimizing Perforator Selection vol.144, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005731
  11. Comparison of flap outcomes between single‐ and multiple‐perforator‐based free anterolateral thigh flap in head and neck reconstruction vol.39, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30378
  12. Utilisation of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in the assessment of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction surgery vol.74, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.01.027
  13. Innovative DIEP flap perfusion evaluation tool: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of indocyanine green-based fluorescence angiography with the SPY-Q proprietary software vol.14, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217698
  14. Necrosis or Flap Loss After Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Reconstruction: Impact of Perforators and Recipient Vessels vol.6, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1729638
  15. Validating machine learning approaches for prediction of donor related complication in microsurgical breast reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study vol.11, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85155-z