Should free deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps be considered a quality indicator in breast reconstruction?

Less Is More: The Role of Mesh in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction with Abdominal Flaps

BACKGROUND

 The use of mesh to reinforce the abdominal wall after abdominal flap harvest has been reported to decrease the risk of bulging and herniation. However, the impact of the plane of mesh placement in relation to the anterior rectus sheath (vs. no mesh) on postoperative abdominal complications remains unclear.

METHODS

 We retrospectively analyzed the length of stay and clinical outcomes in 158 female patients who underwent breast reconstruction with 250 free abdominal flaps. Group 1 consisted of patients who underwent polypropylene sublay-onlay ("sandwich") mesh placement (N = 70) versus polypropylene sublay-only mesh (group 2; N = 54) versus primary fascial repair without mesh (group 3; N = 34).

RESULTS

 Patient demographics and comorbidities were comparable between study groups, except for rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (group 1: 53% vs. group 2: 33% vs. group 3: 24% [p < 0.01]), postoperative follow-up in months (group 1: 21.5; group 2: 11.5; group 3: 7.6 [p < 0.01]), and length of stay in days (group 1: 4.9 vs. group 2: 4.4 vs. group 3: 3.3 [p < 0.01]). No differences were observed in breast flap and donor-site complications between study groups. Patients in group 3 required significantly lower oral morphine equivalent units postoperatively compared with those in groups 1 and 2 (group 1:185.5 vs. group 2: 79.7 vs. group 3: 71.6 [p < 0.01]).

CONCLUSION

 Abdominal donor-site closure without mesh was associated with a shorter length of stay and less narcotic intake without an increase in donor-site complications. These findings should be considered when deciding to place mesh for donor-site closure after abdominal flap harvest.

[Increasing Safety in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction - Technique and Technology]

Microsurgical reconstruction has established itself as a standard procedure in breast reconstruction as it permits creation of a natural and aesthetically appealing breast mound, even after modified radical mastectomy and radiation. In the past few decades numerous new free flap donor-sites have been described that permit an individualized approach to reconstruction, thus, resulting in a high level of patient satisfaction. Paralleling these technical innovations, the focus of microsurgical breast reconstruction has shifted from mere "flap success" to "aesthetic outcome", while also taking into account the respective donor-site morbidity. Here, the authors discuss contemporary developments in the field with a particular focus on surgical techniques and technologies that contribute to increasing the safety of microsurgical breast reconstruction.

The Plane of Mesh Placement Does Not Impact Abdominal Donor Site Complications in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Reinforcement of the abdominal wall with synthetic mesh in autologous breast reconstruction using abdominal free tissue transfer decreases the risk of bulging and herniation. However, the impact of the plane of mesh placement on donor site complications has not yet been investigated.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 312 patients who had undergone autologous breast reconstruction with muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flaps or deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps as well as polypropylene mesh implantation at the donor site. Donor site complications were compared among patients with different flap types and different mesh positions including overlay (n = 90), inlay and overlay (I-O; n = 134), and sublay (n = 88).

RESULTS

Abdominal hernias occurred in 2.86% of patients who had undergone MS-TRAM reconstructions and in 2.63% of patients who had undergone DIEP reconstructions. When comparing patients with different mesh positions, donor site complications occurred in 14.4% of patients with overlay mesh, 13.4% of patients with I-O mesh, and 10.2% of patients with sublay mesh (P = 0.68). Abdominal hernias occurred in 4.44% of patients with overlay mesh, 2.24% of patients with I-O mesh, and 2.27% of patients with sublay mesh (P = 0.69). Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not identify a significant association between mesh position and hernia rates as well as wound complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that the plane of synthetic mesh placement in relation to the rectus abdominis muscle does not impact the rate of postoperative donor site complications in patients undergoing breast reconstruction with MS-TRAM or DIEP flaps.

How to Maximize Aesthetics in Autologous Breast Reconstruction

With continuous technical and functional advances in the field of breast reconstruction, there is now a greater focus on the artistry and aesthetic aspects of autologous reconstruction. Whereas once surgeons were most concerned with flap survival and vessel patency, they are now dedicated to reconstructing a similarly or even more aesthetically pleasing breast than before tumor resection. We discuss the approach to shaping the breast through the footprint, conus, and skin envelope. We then discuss how donor site aesthetics can be optimized through flap design, scar management, and umbilical positioning. Each patient has a different perception of their ideal breast appearance, and through conversation and counseling, realistic goals can be set to reach optimal aesthetic outcomes in breast reconstruction.

Influence of closed incision negative-pressure therapy on abdominal donor-site morbidity in microsurgical breast reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Closed incision negative-pressure therapy (CINPT) has been shown to shorten the time to heal in post-bariatric abdominoplasty and to lower seroma rates in cosmetic abdominoplasty. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of CINPT on donor-site morbidity following abdominal-based free-flap breast reconstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed medical records from 225 women who had undergone 300 microsurgical free-flap breast reconstructions from the abdomen from November 1, 2007 to March 31, 2019. Patients were grouped according to wound therapy, including 127 patients in the standard of care group and 98 patients in the CINPT group. Primary outcomes were minor (non-operative) and major (operative) surgical site complications. Secondary outcomes were time to drain removal, in-hospital length, and scar quality.

RESULTS

Analysis of patient demographics showed an equal distribution with regard to the age, smoking status, prevalence of diabetes mellitus, preoperative chemotherapy, and previous abdominal surgery in both groups. Significantly more patients with obesity (29.6 vs. 15.8%; p = .01) and bilateral breast reconstruction (40.8 vs. 27.6%; p = .04) were included in the CINPT group. Compared to standard of care, the CINPT group had a lower incidence of major surgical site complications (26.0 vs. 11.2%; p = .001). There was no difference in minor surgical site complications and secondary outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSION

The CINPT represents a reliable tool to reduce surgical site complications on the abdominal donor-site in abdominal-based free-flap breast reconstruction.

Pelvic/Perineal Reconstruction: Time to Consider the Anterolateral Thigh Flap as a First-line Option?

Background:

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) and pelvic exenteration continue to be common procedures for the treatment of colorectal malignancy. The workhorse flap for reconstruction in these instances has been the vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. The associated donor site morbidity, however, cannot be ignored. Here, we provide a review of the literature and present the senior author’s (A.M.) experience using the pedicled anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap for reconstruction of soft tissue defects following APR and pelvic exenteration.

Methods:

Patients who underwent pelvic/perineal reconstruction with pedicled ALT flaps between 2017 and 2019 were included in the study. Parameters of interest included age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, history of radiation, extent of ablative surgery, and postoperative complication rate.

Results:

A total of 23 patients (16 men and 7 women) with a median age and body mass index of 66 years (inter-quartile range [IQR]: 49–71 years) and 24.9 kg/m² (IQR: 24.2–26.7 kg/m²) were included in the study, respectively. Thirteen (56.5%) patients presented with rectal cancer, 5 (21.7%) with anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), 4 (17.4%) with Crohn’s disease, and 1 (4.3%) with Paget’s disease. Nineteen patients (82.6%) received neoadjuvant radiation. Nine (39.1%) patients experienced 11 complications (2 major and 9 minor). The most common complication was partial perineal wound dehiscence (N = 6 [26.1%]). Stable soft tissue coverage was achieved in all but one patient.

Conclusions:

The ALT flap allows for stable soft tissue coverage following APR and pelvic exenteration without being associated with abdominal donor site morbidity. Consideration to its use as a first-line reconstructive option should be given in pelvic/perineal reconstruction.