Bilateral breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps in slim patients

Alternatives to the Gold Standard: A Systematic Review of Profunda Artery Perforator and Lumbar Artery Perforator Flaps for Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the current gold-standard autologous option. The profunda artery perforator (PAP) and lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flaps have more recently been described as alternatives for patients who are not candidates for a DIEP flap. The aim of this study was to review the survival and complication rates of PAP and LAP flaps, using the DIEP flap as a benchmark.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Papers were screened by title and abstract, and full texts reviewed by three independent blinded reviewers. Quality was assessed using MINORS criteria.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were included, for a total of 745 PAP, 62 stacked PAP, 187 LAP, and 23,748 DIEP flap breast reconstructions. The PAP (98.3%) had comparable success rate to DIEP (98.4%), and the stacked PAP (88.7%) and LAP (92.5%) success rate was significantly lower (P < 0.0001). The PAP and LAP groups both had a low incidence of fat necrosis. However, the revision rate for the LAP group was 16.1% whereas the PAP group was 3.3%. Donor site wound dehiscence rate was 2.9 in the LAP group and 9.1% in the PAP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Profunda artery perforator and DIEP flaps demonstrate very high rates of overall survival. The LAP flap has a lower survival rate. This review highlights the survival and complication rates of these alternative flaps, which may help clinicians in guiding autologous reconstruction technique when a DIEP flap is unavailable.

Free Tissue Transfer for Reconstruction After Bilateral Skin Sparing Mastectomy-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignant neoplasia in females worldwide. Overall survival and patients' choice for bilateral mastectomy have increased. It is therefore important to offer breast reconstructive procedures to improve patient quality of life and self-esteem. The aim of this systematic literature review is to quantify the outcome and sustainability of bilateral breast reconstruction using autologous, vascularized free tissue transfer.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of PubMed, Cochrane, and the Web of Science databases was performed. A total of 5879 citations were identified, and 12 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 1316 patients were included, with a mean age of 47.2 years. Overall, 32.5% of patients experienced a complication after breast reconstruction. If reported, 7.45% of patients experienced major complications, while 20.7% had minor complications.The following flaps were used for breast reconstruction, in order of reducing frequency: DIEP (45.45%), TRAM (22.73%), SIEA (9.09%), SGAP (9.09%), TUG (4.55%), TMG (4.55%), and LD/MLD (4.55%).

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies indicate that bilateral breast reconstruction using autologous, vascularized free tissue transfer is a safe procedure for postmastectomy reconstruction and offers stable long-term results. This is particularly in comparison to implant-based breast reconstruction.

Challenges in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Review of Recommendations

Breast reconstruction is an integral part of breast cancer treatment and offers significant psychosocial benefits for patients undergoing mastectomy as a part of their treatment plan. Autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) utilizes a patient's own tissue to reconstruct the mastectomy defect, obviating the need for the implantation of a foreign object. As the field of plastic surgery progresses, ABR has become an excellent option for the recreation of a native breast mount. With that said, there are patient populations who present unique challenges when optimizing an aesthetic ABR result. We aim to discuss these challenging groups, including patients with both high and low body mass index (BMI), patients with a history of massive weight loss, patients who require post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), and patients electing for unilateral procedures where the surgeon attempts to match the reconstructed breast with the native breast. In our discussion, we review the literature recommendations for management as well as our experiences with our own patient cases. Ultimately, we believe this procedure can be performed in a wide variety of patient types and can be offered to those who may not be considered the "ideal" candidate.

Surgical Outcomes of Autologous Breast Reconstruction in Low Body Mass Index Patients: Beyond the Standard DIEP Flap

BACKGROUND

Autologous breast reconstruction provides higher satisfaction than implant-based reconstruction in women with low body mass index (BMI). However, the accepted standard of microvascular breast reconstruction, the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, can be challenging to achieve due to the paucity of adnominal bulk in these patients. This study compared operative outcomes in women with BMI less than 23.5 following reconstruction after one of three free flap methods: the DIEP flap, alternative flaps (ie, lumbar artery perforator flap or profounda artery perforator flap), and stacked flaps.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on thin patients (BMI <23.5) who underwent autologous breast reconstruction between 2010 and 2021 by two senior authors (N.T.H. and S.S.T.) at a single institution. One hundred fifteen patients were divided into three reconstructive groups. Flap weights, complication rates, secondary revisions, and fat grafting in each group were then compared.

RESULTS

The success rate in all three groups was 100%, with only one partial flap loss in the stacked group. There was a significant difference in overall minor complications and donor complications among the three groups, with alternative flaps experiencing the most. All three groups had similar incidences of recipient breast complications, medical complications, need for secondary revisions, and amount of fat grafted.

CONCLUSIONS

Autologous breast reconstruction in low BMI patients yields successful and durable results. This study shows that predictable results in the thin patient population can be obtained via alternate autologous methods beyond the standard DIEP flap.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap safety profile in slim versus non-slim BMI patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The complications of breast reconstruction using deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps in non-slim patients are well recognized. However, the effects of this surgery performed on slim patients are yet to be consolidated. This study aims to compare the outcomes of performing DIEP flap breast reconstruction in slim and non-slim body mass index (BMI) patients.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was performed with a multi-database search (Cochrane, EMBASE, OVID Medline, PubMed, and Web of Sciences) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines on 1 February 2021. Data from articles meeting inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed with an inverse variance statistical model.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included, comprising 574 slim patients and 901 non-slim BMI patients who underwent autologous DIEP flap breast reconstruction. When comparing between the slim and non-slim groups, no statistically significant difference was found in terms of complete flap loss (OR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.11-2.68, p=0.44), partial flap loss (OR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.3-2.82, p=0.88), and fat necrosis (OR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.61-1.37, p=0.66). Similarly, in terms of general surgical complications, there was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of all complications (OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.45-1.51, p=0.54), abdominal wound healing complications (OR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.59-1.73, p=0.97), infections (OR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.41-1.37, p=0.34), and seroma (OR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.35-227, p=0.81).

CONCLUSION

There is no increased risk of postoperative complications in either group. DIEP flaps can be safely performed in slim patients, though higher quality research may be required to further confirm this.

The transverse musculocutaneous gracilis flap for autologous breast reconstruction: focus on donor site morbidity

Purpose

The transverse musculocutaneous gracilis (TMG) flap is as a valuable alternative in autologous breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the donor site morbidity and secondary refinement procedures after TMG flap breast reconstruction.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted, including all patients who received TMG flap breast reconstructions, from January 2012 to August 2019. Primary outcomes were surgical site complications of the donor site and secondary refinement procedures carried out for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes for the medial thigh. Secondary outcomes of interest were lipofilling procedures for optimization of the reconstructed breasts.

Results

Ninety-nine patients received 159 TMG flaps for breast reconstruction. Patients’ mean BMI was 23.5 (15.6–32.5) kg/m². Bilateral breast reconstructions were performed in 60.6%. The mean flap volume was 330 (231–440) g. Surgical site complications occurred in 14.5% of the TMG donor sites and wound dehiscence was the most common complication (9.4%). Lymphedema occurred in 1.8% of the donor thighs. Aesthetic refinement procedures were performed in 25.2% on the donor thigh or contralateral thigh. Secondary lipofilling was performed in 54.1% of the reconstructed breasts and fat was harvested in only 11.9% from the legs.

Conclusion

The TMG flap breast reconstruction combines low donor site morbidity with adequate volume for appealing breast results, particularly in slim-to-normal weight patients. However, patients should be informed about the likelihood of secondary refinement procedures on the donor site and the need of lipofilling to optimize the breast shape and volume.

Uni-vs. bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction - A multicenter outcome analysis

OBJECTIVE

Over the past decade numbers of bilateral mastectomy have increased steadily. As a result, bilateral breast reconstruction is gaining popularity. The presented study compares complications and outcomes of unilateral and bilateral DIEP free-flap breast reconstructions using the largest database available in Europe.

METHODS

Female breast cancer patients (n = 3926) receiving DIEP flap breast reconstructions (n = 4577 free flaps) at 22 different centers were included in this study. Free flaps were stratified into two groups: a unilateral- (UL) and a bilateral- (BL) breast reconstruction group. Groups were compared with regard to surgical complications and free flap outcome.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was significantly longer in the BL group (UL: 285.2 ± 107.7 vs. BL: 399.1 ± 136.8 min; p < 0.001). Mean ischemia time was comparable between groups (p = 0.741). There was no significant difference with regard to total (UL 1.8% vs. BL 2.6%, p = 0.081) or partial flap loss (UL 1.2% vs. BL 0.9%, p = 0.45) between both groups. Rates of venous or arterial thrombosis were comparable between both groups (venous: UL 2.9% vs. BL 2.2%, p = 0.189; arterial: UL 1.8% vs. BL 1.2%, p = 0.182). However, significantly higher rates of hematoma at the donor and recipient site were observed in the UL group (donor site: UL 1.1% vs. BL 0.1%, p = 0.001; recipient site UL 3.9% vs. BL 1.7%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The data underline the feasibility of bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction, when performed in a setting of specialized centers.

Does surgical procedure type impact postoperative pain and recovery in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction?

BACKGROUND

The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is the commonest flap used for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. It is performed as a unilateral (based on one [unipedicled] or two [bipedicled] vascular pedicles) or bilateral procedure following unilateral or bilateral mastectomies. No previous studies have comprehensively analyzed analgesia requirements and hospital stay of these three forms of surgical reconstruction.

METHODS

A 7-year retrospective cohort study (2008-2015) of a single-surgeon's DIEP-patients was conducted. Patient-reported pain scores, patient-controlled morphine requirements and recovery times were compared using non-parametric statistics and multivariable regression.

RESULTS

The study included 135 participants: unilateral unipedicled (n=84), unilateral bipedicled (n=24) and bilateral unipedicled (n=27). Univariate comparison of the three DIEP types showed a significant difference in 12-hour postoperative morphine requirements (P=0.020); bipedicled unilateral patients used significantly less morphine than unipedicled (unilateral) patients at 12 (P=0.005), 24 (P=0.020), and 48 (P=0.046) hours. Multivariable regression comparing these two groups revealed that both reconstruction type and smoking status were significant predictors for 12-hour postoperative morphine usage (P=0.038 and P=0.049, respectively), but only smoking, remained significant at 24 (P=0.010) and 48 (P=0.010) hours. Bilateral reconstruction patients' mean hospital stay was 2 days longer than either unilateral reconstruction (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although all three forms of DIEP flap breast reconstruction had similar postoperative pain measures, a novel finding of our study was that bipedicled DIEP flap harvest might be associated with lower early postoperative morphine requirements. Bilateral and bipedicled procedures in appropriate patients might therefore be undertaken without significantly increased pain/morbidity compared to unilateral unipedicled reconstructions.