Incidence of shoulder functional morbidity following ipsilateral mastectomy and latissimus dorsi flap reconstruction

Autogenous breast reconstruction for total mastectomies: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Mastectomies have a significant socio-psychological impact, motivating patients to undergo breast reconstruction. Initially, silicone implants were used to reconstruct the breast. However, breast implants have been the subject of successive crises throughout the years. Indeed, rupture, silicone bleeding, and capsular contracture remain topical. In 2019, the BIOCELL textured breast implants was banned and recalled due to the discovery of the breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). More recently, the breast implant illness has been depicted in the media. To cope with these issues and to respond to some patients' expectations for a natural reconstruction, plastic surgeons have developed autogenous solutions for breast reconstruction. Since Taylor's research on angiosomes, the development of the microsurgery and more recently fat grafting, autogenous breast reconstruction has known a tremendous expansion. Autologous breast reconstruction allows a more natural feeling and texture. This narrative review aims to provide to the readers a comprehensive and updated evidence-based overview of state of the art about autologous breast reconstruction after total mastectomy.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of the literature searching for papers published between January 2010 and December 2022. The MeSH terms with different combinations were used to identify articles for inclusion. After screening article titles and abstracts independently by three authors, 66 papers were included in this review.

Key Content and Findings

In this review, the authors describe and discuss the different autogenous techniques in breast reconstruction.

Conclusions

Autologous reconstructions provide very satisfactory, durable, and reliable results with relatively low complication rates. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps, latissimus dorsi flaps and autologous fat grafting are the most common type of autogenous breast reconstructions.

Objective Comparison of Donor-Site Morbidity following Full and Thoracodorsal Nerve-Preserving Split Latissimus Dorsi Flaps

BACKGROUND

The latissimus dorsi flap is a workhorse for reconstruction. However, flap harvest has been variably reported to result in donor-site morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare donor-site morbidity following harvest of a split latissimus dorsi flap, preserving the anterior branch of the thoracodorsal nerve, and a traditional nerve-sacrificing full latissimus dorsi flap.

METHODS

Patients who underwent split or full latissimus dorsi flaps between July of 2017 and August of 2020 at a single center were recalled for assessment. Donor-site morbidity in the shoulder was evaluated through the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire. Medical Research Council strength grading was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients in the split latissimus dorsi cohort and 22 patients in the full latissimus dorsi cohort were recalled. Patient-reported outcomes as assessed through the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire scores revealed statistically greater (p < 0.05) donor-site morbidity associated with the traditional compared to split latissimus dorsi flap. Seven patients in the full latissimus dorsi cohort had less than Medical Research Council grade 5 power at the shoulder, whereas all patients in the split latissimus dorsi cohort demonstrated full power at the shoulder.

CONCLUSIONS

Traditional full latissimus dorsi flaps were found to result in greater donor-site morbidity compared to thoracodorsal nerve-preserving split latissimus dorsi flaps. Split latissimus dorsi flaps may be beneficial in preserving donor-site function and strength.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Motor Control Evaluation as a Significant Component in Upper Limb Function Assessment in Female Breast Cancer Patients after Mastectomy

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy among women. Conservative and operative treatment methods are associated with a risk of side effects pertaining to the shoulder complex. The surgery complications including chronic pain, upper limb and chest lymphedema, range of motion limitations, and motor control deficiencies may lead to upper limb function impairment and affect the quality of life negatively. Twenty-three women were examined in the tested group and twenty-two women in the control group. The motor control was assessed with dissociation tests as defined by Comerford and Mottram. In order to assess patient-perceived upper limb disability, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was used. The test of glenohumeral (GH) abduction control in frontal plane and in scapular plane and medial rotation control outcomes were found to be statistically significant. It pertains to both: Comparison between groups and analysis within the tested group—body sides comparison. The DASH questionnaire results analysis indicates that there was a higher degree of subjectively perceived disability of upper limb in the tested group. Surgical interventions in the breast cancer treatment and other medical procedures affect the level of motor control and perceived disability of upper limb negatively in this group of patients. Movement faults are statistically more prevalent in the tested group. Movement faults are more prevalent on the operated side in the tested group.

Thoracodorsal artery flaps for breast reconstruction-the variants and its approach

Thoracodorsal artery (TDA) flaps, ranging from the vascular-pedicled thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap, the propeller TDAP flap, and the muscle-sparing latissimus dorsi (MSLD) flap to the conventional latissimus dorsi (LD) flap and the extended LD flap, can all be used for breast reconstruction. The aim of this paper and review is to share our experiences and recommendations for procedure selection when applying TDA-based flaps for breast reconstruction. We describe the different surgical techniques and our thoughts and experience regarding indications and selection between these procedures for individual patients who opt for breast reconstruction. We have performed 574 TDA flaps in 491 patients: 60 extended LD flaps, 122 conventional LD flaps, two MSLD flaps, 233 propeller TDAP flaps, 122 TDAP flaps, and 35 free contralateral TDAP flaps for stacked TDAP breast reconstruction. All the TDA flaps are important flaps for reconstruction of the breast. The LD flap is still an option, although we prefer flaps without muscle when possible. The vascular-pedicled TDAP flap is an option for experienced surgeons, and the propeller TDAP flap can be used in most reconstructive cases of the breast, although a secondary procedure is often necessary for correction of the pedicle bulk. The extended LD flap is an option for women with a substantial body mass index, although it is associated with the highest morbidity of all the TDA flaps. The MSLD flap can be used if the perforators are small or if dissection of the perforators is assessed to be hazardous.

Function-Sparing Free Split Latissimus Dorsi Flap for Lower-Extremity Reconstruction: Five-Year Consecutive Single-Surgeon Series

BACKGROUND

The free split latissimus dorsi flap for lower-extremity reconstruction has some advantages over the traditional latissimus dorsi flap. The flap is harvested with the patient in the supine position and is associated with minimal morbidity as the function of the remaining latissimus dorsi muscle is preserved through the posterior division of the thoracodorsal nerve.

METHODS

A consecutive single-surgeon 5-year series of free split latissimus dorsi muscle flaps for lower-extremity reconstruction (n = 42) was evaluated. Donor site morbidity was evaluated through assessment of the strength of the remaining latissimus dorsi at least 1 month after surgery. Shoulder function was evaluated postoperatively using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI).

RESULTS

The mean age of the 42 patients was 40.7 years. The mean length and width of the flaps were 17.9 cm and 8.6 cm. The majority (71%) of the wounds were due to acute trauma. Of the 42 flap procedures performed, 95% (40) were successful. Assessment of remaining latissimus dorsi strength at least 1 month postoperatively, during 3 activities, showed a Medical Research Council (MRC) grade of 5 in all patients. The mean and median scores were 6.4 and 0 according to the DASH, 6.0/6.4 and 0/0 on the SPADI pain/disability scales, and 90.7 and 100 on the ASES.

CONCLUSIONS

The free split latissimus dorsi flap is a large reliable muscle flap with negligible donor site morbidity that is particularly advantageous for lower-extremity resurfacing following trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Is Thoracodorsal Nerve Transection Needed in Latissimus Dorsi Breast Reconstruction?

PURPOSE

Latissimus dorsi (LD) breast reconstruction is of proven efficacy. Advantages of thoracodorsal nerve transection are potential prevention of muscle spasticity/movement; disadvantages are possible long-term muscle atrophy and volume loss. This study's purpose is to provide data that would support or refute nerve transection.

METHODS

A retrospective study of all LD breast reconstruction patients from 2011 to 2017 was done. Total number of flaps was identified, as was thoracodorsal nerve transection. Outcomes were noted for symptomatic muscle spasticity/involuntary movement, and complications inclusive of hematoma, seroma, and capsular contracture.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients had 170 flaps. Eighty-one flaps had nerve transection; 89 did not. These cohorts had no differences in comorbidities, indications of surgery (cancer vs prophylactic), irradiation, delayed/immediate reconstruction, and use of expanders. Symptomatic muscle movement/spasticity was not significantly different: 3 (3.7%) of 78 in transection and 5 (5.6%) of 84 in nontransection (P = 0.55, χ). Incidence of seroma in the transection group was notably higher (18/81; 22% vs 12%) but not statistically significant (P = 0.09, χ). No differences existed in all other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic spasticity or involuntary muscle movement occurs in a small number of patients with LD breast reconstruction and is not affected by thoracodorsal nerve transection. Movement after transection is likely due to aberrant nerve innervation and reinnervation. The absence of movement without transection is due to disruption of muscle position and origin after transfer. Seroma formation may be affected by increased axillary dissection required for nerve transection. These data do not support nerve transection, and therefore, it is not recommended.