Archives of Plastic Surgery

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

DOI QR Code

Choice of recipient vessels in muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction: A comparative study

  • Moon, Kyung-Chul (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Min (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Baek, Si-Ook (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jang, Seo-Yoon (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yoon, Eul-Sik (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Byung-Il (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Seung-Ha (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2018.07.29
  • Accepted : 2018.10.30
  • Published : 2019.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background Thoracodorsal vessels (TDVs) and internal mammary vessels (IMVs) have both been widely employed as recipient vessels for use in free muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flaps. However, whether TDVs or IMVs are preferable as recipient vessels for autologous breast reconstruction with a free MS-TRAM flap remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes when TDVs were used as recipient vessels to those obtained when IMVs were used as recipient vessels for autologous breast reconstruction with a free MS-TRAM flap. Methods A retrospective matched-cohort study was performed. We retrospectively reviewed data collected from patients who underwent a free MS-TRAM flap for autologous breast reconstructions after mastectomy between March 2003 and June 2013. After a one-to-one matching using age, 100 autologous breast reconstructions were selected in this study. Of the 100 breast reconstructions, 50 flaps were anastomosed to TDVs and 50 to IMVs. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and aesthetic score were compared between the two groups. Results No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in patient demographics and clinical outcomes, including the complication rates and aesthetic scores. There were no major complications such as total or partial flap loss in either group. Conclusions The results of our study demonstrate that both TDVs and IMVs were safe and efficient as recipient vessels in terms of the complication rates and aesthetic outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Chang DW, Kim S. Breast reconstruction and lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:19-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c49477
  2. Temple CL, Strom EA, Youssef A, et al. Choice of recipient vessels in delayed TRAM flap breast reconstruction after radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;115:105-13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000146037.19482.77
  3. Loiselle F, Schrag C, Magi E, et al. Occult malignancy rate associated with thoracodorsal vessel dissection for free flap breast reconstruction. J Surg Oncol 2008;98:94-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21047
  4. Halim AS, Alwi AA. Internal mammary perforators as recipient vessels for deep inferior epigastric perforator and muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap breast reconstruction in an Asian population. Ann Plast Surg 2014;73:170-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e318270704b
  5. Saint-Cyr M, Youssef A, Bae HW, et al. Changing trends in recipient vessel selection for microvascular autologous breast reconstruction: an analysis of 1483 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:1993-2000. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000260636.43385.90
  6. Moran SL, Nava G, Behnam AB, et al. An outcome analysis comparing the thoracodorsal and internal mammary vessels as recipient sites for microvascular breast reconstruction: a prospective study of 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111:1876-82. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000056872.06003.7E
  7. Haywood RM, Raurell A, Perks AG, et al. Autologous free tissue breast reconstruction using the internal mammary perforators as recipient vessels. Br J Plast Surg 2003;56:689-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1226(03)00206-6
  8. Follmar KE, Prucz RB, Manahan MA, et al. Internal mammary intercostal perforators instead of the true internal mammary vessels as the recipient vessels for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:34-40.
  9. Majumder S, Batchelor AG. Internal mammary vessels as recipients for free TRAM breast reconstruction: aesthetic and functional considerations. Br J Plast Surg 1999;52:286-9. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjps.1998.3059
  10. Dupin CL, Allen RJ, Glass CA, et al. The internal mammary artery and vein as a recipient site for free-flap breast reconstruction: a report of 110 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;98:685-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199609001-00013
  11. Hefel L, Schwabegger A, Ninkovic M, et al. Internal mammary vessels: anatomical and clinical considerations. Br J Plast Surg 1995;48:527-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(95)90039-X
  12. Santanelli Di Pompeo F, Longo B, Sorotos M, et al. The axillary versus internal mammary recipient vessel sites for breast reconstruction with diep flaps: a retrospective study of 256 consecutive cases. Microsurgery 2015;35:34-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.22266
  13. Samargandi OA, Winter J, Corkum JP, et al. Comparing the thoracodorsal and internal mammary vessels as recipients for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microsurgery 2017;37: 937-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30244
  14. Kropf N, Macadam SA, McCarthy C, et al. Influence of the recipient vessel on fat necrosis after breast reconstruction with a free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2010;44:96-101. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844311003675354
  15. Lhuaire M, Hivelin M, Drame M, et al. Determining the best recipient vessel site for autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction with DIEP flaps: an anatomical study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017;70:781-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2017.01.008
  16. Rosson GD, Holton LH, Silverman RP, et al. Internal mammary perforators: a cadaver study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2005;21:239-42. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-871750
  17. Banwell M, Trotter D, Ramakrishnan V. The thoracodorsal artery and vein as recipient vessels for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012;68:542-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e318231add4
  18. Santanelli F, Longo B, Cagli B, et al. Predictive and protective factors for partial necrosis in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: does nulliparity bias flap viability? Ann Plast Surg 2015;74:47-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31828d994d
  19. Cody 3rd HS. Sentinal lymph node mapping in breast cancer. Breast Cancer 1999;6:13-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02966901
  20. McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT, et al. Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: objective measurements. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5213-9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.16.3725
  21. Neligan P, Warren RJ, Van Beek A. Plastic surgery. 3rd ed. New York: Elsevier Saunders; 2013.
  22. Nahabedian M. The internal mammary artery and vein as recipient vessels for microvascular breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012;68:537-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31821daac3
  23. Yang SJ, Eom JS, Lee TJ, et al. Recipient vessel selection in immediate breast reconstruction with free abdominal tissue transfer after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Arch Plast Surg 2012;39:216-21. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2012.39.3.216
  24. Schmidt M, Aszmann OC, Beck H, et al. The anatomic basis of the internal mammary artery perforator flap: a cadaver study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010;63:191-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2008.09.019
  25. Baek IS, You JP, Rhee SM, et al. A clinical anatomic study of internal mammary perforators as recipient vessels for breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2013;40:761-5. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2013.40.6.761

Cited by

  1. Interdisciplinary Treatment of Breast Cancer After Mastectomy With Autologous Breast Reconstruction Using Abdominal Free Flaps in a University Teaching Hospital—A Standardized and Safe Procedur vol.10, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00177
  2. Recipient vessel selection for head and neck reconstruction: A 30-year experience in a single institution vol.21, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2020.00339