Internal mammary perforator vessels as recipient site for microsurgical breast reconstruction: a comparative histomorphometric analysis and incidence of degenerative vascular changes

Minimally Invasive Robotic-assisted Perforator-to-Perforator DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction

Reducing morbidity has been the goal of many reconstructive microsurgery efforts. Several techniques have been described for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction to minimize abdominal donor-site morbidity. Although these techniques have certain tradeoffs, we designed a minimally invasive robot-assisted perforator-to-perforator approach to achieve minimal donor- and recipient-site morbidity. Simultaneous identification of the deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) and internal mammary artery (IMA) perforator was performed, followed by a small fascial incision around the dominant DIEA perforator. The IMA perforator was prepared for a prepectoral anastomosis. The short DIEA pedicle was dissected without further longitudinal fascial incision until an adequate diameter compared with the IMA perforator was reached, and a robot-assisted perforator-to-perforator anastomosis was performed prepectorally. All patients underwent reconstruction performed by a single surgeon. The smallest abdominal incision was 2.5 cm with a DIEP pedicle length of 6 cm. The average IMA perforator diameter was 1.14 mm (1.0 mm-1.2 mm). The average vein diameter was 2.0 mm (1.5-3.0 mm). The incision to closure lasted 330 minutes (313-348 minutes). Flap ischemia was 105 minutes (82-118 minutes), whereas the time for robot-assisted anastomosis was 25 minutes (22-30 minutes). All anastomoses were performed successfully. Our initial experience with robot-assisted perforator-to-perforator anastomosis for DIEP flap breast reconstruction demonstrates promise in achieving minimal patient morbidity. Raising only a very short pedicle can be compensated by adding the prepectoral IMA perforator length and enabling a good size match for small-caliber anastomosis. This technique combines important aspects of most minimally invasive DIEP flap harvests and insets.

Internal mammary perforator vessels as recipient for microvascular breast reconstruction: Technique and outcomes in 161 flaps

BACKGROUND

The use of internal mammary perforator (IMP) vessels as recipients for free flap breast reconstruction was first described in 1999. Despite numerous advantages over the internal mammary (IM) and thoracodorsal recipient vessels, their widespread use remains mired in concern. This paper describes our method of IMP vessel preparation and outcomes with regard to safety and reliability.

METHODS

To support the reliability of the IMP vessel preparation, a retrospective study on prospectively collected data of all free flap breast reconstruction patients between 1 July 2016 and 31 July 2019 was performed. Data were collected on patient demographics, type of reconstruction operative details and complications.

RESULTS

Out of the 450 flaps performed, the IMP vessels were used in 36% of the cases. Of these cases, 18% had received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and 15% had a history of radiotherapy to the chest wall. In total, 161 flaps were performed to reconstruct 138 breasts (115 single and 23 stacked flaps). Three patients required a return to theatre, with one needing recipient vessel revision from the IMP to the IM vessels due to calibre mismatch. No mastectomy skin flap necrosis, free flap loss or significant fat necrosis were encountered.

CONCLUSION

This article describes an IM vessel preparation method that results in predictable outcomes in both single and stacked flap reconstructions with a low complication rate. Due to their reliability and versatility, we consider the IMP vessels a valuable attribute to the recipient vessel arsenal of any breast reconstruction microsurgeon.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes in Autologous Breast Reconstruction Using Internal Mammary Artery Perforators as Recipient Vessels

Recipient vessel selection is vital for successful autologous free-flap breast reconstruction. Internal mammary artery perforators have gained interest as a recipient vessel option. However, previous studies on their microsurgical safety and efficacy are limited and inconsistent. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of using internal mammary artery perforators as recipient vessels in breast reconstruction.

Methods

The protocol has been previously published in PROSPERO (CRD42020190020). The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PROSPERO databases were searched. Two independent reviewers evaluated the articles for inclusion in the study. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the MINORS instrument (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies).

Results

Of the 361 articles screened, 13 studies were included (313 patients with 318 flaps; 223 unilateral, 31 bilateral, mean average age 51.2 and mean BMI 27.8 ± 1.9). The mean overall success rate was 99.8%, the pooled surgical success rate was 100% [95% confidence interval (CI): 97%-100%], and the overall rate of complications was 11% (95% CI: 7%-18%). The most common complication was vascular-related to microanastomoses, with an incidence of 5% (95% CI: 2%-10%). The fat necrosis rate was 3% (95% CI: 2%-6%).

Conclusions

This study verified that internal mammary artery perforator vessels are reliable in breast reconstruction, with a high success rate and a relatively low complication rate. Moreover, in selected microsurgical breast reconstruction patients, internal mammary artery perforators may be the primary recipient vessel choice over the internal mammary artery or thoracodorsal vessels.

Five recipient vessels for metachronous chest wall reconstruction: Case report and literature review

Selecting potential recipient vessel options for free flap anastomosis is an important consideration in microsurgical breast and chest wall reconstruction. In these settings, the most common comprise the internal mammary and thoracodorsal vessels, although alternative anastomotic sites have also been described. On occasion, consideration of these alternatives becomes a necessity. The use of five separate recipient vessels is highlighted in a unique case of recurrent locally advanced breast cancer requiring multiple complex reconstructions using free tissue transfer. A 56-year-old lady presented for delayed breast reconstruction one year after radical mastectomy for locally advanced lobular breast cancer. Despite wide resections, local chest-wall recurrence five times necessitated five microsurgical reconstructions, using separate recipient pedicles: internal mammary vessels, thoracodorsal vessels, serratus branch of thoracodorsal vessels, intercostal vessels and thoracoacromial vessels. All flaps survived completely, without donor or recipient complications. There has not been a subsequent recurrence at 6 months since last reconstruction. The purpose of this report is to present the first reported case of microsurgical chest wall reconstruction using five separate free flaps requiring anastomosis to multiple recipient vessels for anterior chest wall coverage, to present a literature-based and clinical review of the regional vascular anatomy of the anterior chest wall, and to present an operative approach algorithm. In such complex cases, this understanding can facilitate a streamlined approach to management. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 37:66-70, 2017.

Histologic comparison between the internal mammary artery and the deep inferior epigastric artery and clinical implications for microsurgical breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The internal mammary artery (IMA) is one of the most popular recipients for microsurgical breast reconstruction. However, it is often separated into sleeve-like layers when it is handled. This study tried to explain this unique behaviour of the IMA through histologic observation.

METHODS

Nine pairs of IMAs and DIEAs were harvested and subject for haematoxylin-eosin and Verhoeff's elastic staining. Thickness of the tunica media and the number of elastic lamellae were compared. Samples of the IMA, the DIEA, and the thoracodorsal artery from another patient were observed through the transmission electron microscope to further show the structural differences.

RESULTS

The most notable difference was presence of multiple elastic lamellae in tunica media in the IMAs, which was barely present in the DIEAs. The mean number of elastic lamellae was 9.2 in the IMA group and 1.0 in the DIEA group (p < 10(-9)). A transmission electron microscope showed that the tunica media of the DIEA and the TDA was densely packed with smooth muscle cells, while the muscle cells distributed sparsely in the IMA.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMA is an elastic artery which is characterised by multiple layers of elastic lamellae while relatively lacking in smooth muscle cells. The wall of the IMA is easily dissected between the tunica media and the adventitia, or at the outer 1/3 of the tunica media. The inner structure is easily torn if microsutures do not engage the tunica adventitia.