Delayed Mammoplasty with Silicone Gel Implants following DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction

Hybrid Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction:: HyFIL® & HyPAD™ Techniques

There are numerous indications for hybrid breast reconstruction, with the most common being patients who have inadequate donor site volume to achieve the desired breast volume. This article reviews all aspects of hybrid breast reconstruction, including preoperative and assessment, operative technique and considerations, and postoperative management.

[Hybrid Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy]

The challenge following mastectomy is to safely reconstruct breasts of adequate size, shape, symmetry, softness, and sensation ("6 S"). Historically, patients have been offered two reconstructive modalities, namely either implant-based or autologous reconstruction. While this binary approach is appropriate for most patients, there remain a subset of patients for whom this simplistic approach is not suitable. For these, hybrid reconstruction, i. e., the combination of an implant with microsurgical tissue transfer, offers the possibility of individualised reconstruction, which avoids some of the limitations of traditional approaches. Hybrid breast reconstruction, thus expands the indications for microsurgical reconstruction and offers the advantages of this reconstructive modality to a larger patient population. In this article, the surgical technique of hybrid breast reconstruction is described, along with a discussion of important parameters related to this reconstructive modality, including plane and timing of implant placement, and the issue of radiotherapy.

Safety of Routine Pedicle Division during Delayed Breast Augmentation following Free Flap Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Autologous free flap breast reconstruction is a common reconstructive procedure, with the ability to produce a natural breast shape and a long history of success. Despite its benefits, there are special situations in which patients lack sufficient donor-site tissue to achieve adequate breast size and projection. With this study, the authors describe their institutional experience of delayed implant augmentation after autologous breast reconstruction with a particular focus on pedicle division as a technique to improve aesthetic results.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients that underwent free flap autologous breast reconstruction with delayed implant augmentation was conducted over a 13-year period. Flaps were divided into a control group without pedicle division and a divided pedicle group. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, clinical and surgical characteristics, implant details, and postoperative implant and flap complications.

RESULTS

No significant differences in terms of age, body mass index, comorbidities, radiation therapy, or surgical indications were noted. The most common reason for delayed implant augmentation after autologous breast reconstruction was change in breast size and breast asymmetry. In terms of implant and flap complications, we found no significant differences between the control and divided pedicle groups after delayed implant augmentation.

CONCLUSIONS

From the authors' institutional experience, pedicle division in delayed breast augmentation with implants after free flap breast reconstruction can be safety performed in selected cases. This technique can be a powerful tool for plastic surgeons to improve the final aesthetic appearance of the reconstructed breast.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Tissue: Current Methods and Techniques

Breast reconstruction is an option that should be considered for any patient facing a mastectomy. Autologous breast reconstruction provides the benefits of excellent longterm results, natural appearance, natural feel, and the best opportunity for sensory restoration. These factors lead many patients to choose autologous tissue over implant-based reconstruction. With improved anatomic and technical knowledge, the donor site morbidity previously associated with abdominally based autologous reconstruction has been significantly reduced. Today, the DIEP flap is the preferred autologous method allowing restoration of a “natural,” aesthetic breast with potential for sensation while simultaneously minimizing abdominal donor site morbidity. Alternative flaps and adjunctive procedures provide options when dealing with patients who present with challenging clinical scenarios because of an inadequate abdominal donor site. This paper reviews current methods employed by a high volume breast reconstruction practice to achieve these goals.

Secondary Implant Augmentation in the Subpectoral Plane following Abdominal-based Perforator Flaps for Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Abdominal-based perforator flaps are the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction. However, among patients with a small-to-medium amount of redundant abdominal tissue, this may result in an inadequate breast mound. Secondary implant augmentation has been reported as one method to augment volume, address breast mound asymmetry, and enhance overall aesthetic outcome. We aim to analyze postoperative complications associated with the secondary implant augmentation following a primary breast reconstruction with abdominal perforator flaps.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent secondary implant augmentation following abdominal-based perforator flap breast reconstruction. Patient characteristics, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, type of flap used, indication for secondary augmentation as well as perioperative and postoperative complication including flap or implant loss were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients met inclusion criteria. Forty flaps were performed (16 bilateral and 8 unilateral). A total of 36 implants were placed in subpectoral plane in a secondary revision procedure. The mean time between secondary augmentation and index procedure was 22 months. Average implant volume was 270 g. No intraoperative complication or flap loss was recorded. Postoperative surgical site infection occurred in a total of 4 patients (17%) with 3 patients requiring explantation of a total of 4 implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary augmentation of abdominal-based perforator flap using a permanent implant is an effective method to address volume and asymmetry and to enhance aesthetic outcome. In our study, however, we observed a higher than expected rate of postoperative infection.

A Critical Analysis of Prosthetic Augmentation of Autologous Microvascular Breast Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

The combined approach using both an implant and autologous tissue for breast reconstruction has become more common over the last 10 years. We sought to provide a systematic review and outcomes analysis of this technique.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library database to identify studies that described implant augmentation of autologous flaps for breast reconstruction. The references of selected articles were also reviewed to identify any additional pertinent articles.

RESULTS

We identified 11 articles, which included 230 patients and 378 flaps. Implants used ranged in size from 90 to 510 cc, with an average size of 198 cc. Implants were more frequently placed at the time of autologous reconstruction and in the subpectoral plane. There were no total flap losses, and partial flap loss occurred in 3 patients (1%). There were no cases of venous or arterial thrombosis and no early return to the operating room for flap compromise. Eight implants (2%) were lost because of infection or extrusion, and capsular contracture occurred in 9 breasts (3%). When stratified by the timing of implant placement (immediate vs delayed), there were no significant differences in any postoperative outcomes except the immediate group had a higher infection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The criteria for women to be candidates for autologous tissue breast reconstruction can be expanded by adding an implant underneath the flap. We found the overall flap loss rate is comparable with standard autologous flap reconstruction, and the implant loss rate is lower than that in patients who undergo prosthetic reconstruction alone.

Creation of a Central Under Flap Pocket Allows Secondary Implant Augmentation of Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction

Background:

When a single perforator flap does not provide adequate volume or projection for satisfactory breast reconstruction, the addition of an implant may be considered at the time of second-stage revisions. Dissection of an implant pocket beneath the flap may lead to the inadvertent injury of the flap pedicle as the tissue planes have been obscured by tissue ingrowth. The authors present a technique in which the boundaries of the implant pocket are predetermined at the time of flap reconstruction allowing an implant to be inserted at the second stage in ideal position with greater ease of dissection and minimal risk to the flap pedicle.

Methods:

Forty patients (80 bilateral perforator flap breast reconstructions) treated with the creation of central under flap pocket technique in anticipation of subsequent sub flap implant augmentation within an 18-month period were assessed retrospectively.

Results:

Sixty-eight patients with flaps (85%) went on to receive secondary augmentation with silicone implants. The average percentage increase in volume contributed by the implant was 41%. The undersurface of the acellular dermal matrix was readily identified, and its medial most extent safely determined, allowing the expeditious recreation of the predelineated central under-flap implant pocket. No flap pedicles were injured during the process, and the implants were placed in a favorable position providing maximum projection to the reconstruction. No subsequent development of fat necrosis was identified after augmentation.

Conclusion:

The creation of central under flap pocket technique allows for safe, effective, and expedient delayed implant augmentation of perforator flap breast reconstruction.

What's the remedy for the distal necrosis of DIEP flap, better venous drain or more arterial supply?

Background

We developed a novel pedicled DIEP flap model in rat to explore the possible remedy for the distal necrosis of the flap.

Methods

A deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, based on the second right cranial perforator (P2) as the main pedicle, was elevated in 48 Sprague-Dawley rats. The rats were randomized into 4 groups: group I, the left P2 remaining intact as supercharging; group II, the left P2 artery alone kept as supercharging; group III, the left P2 vein alone kept as supercharging; group IV, no supercharging. Transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO₂) and transcutaneous carbon dioxide pressure (TcPCO₂) were measured immediately after flap elevation, protein level of Hif-1a was measured 48 hours later, and flap survival was assessed 7 days postoperatively.

Results

Blockade of artery led to significantly lower TcPO₂, higher TcPCO₂, and higher expression level of Hif-1a in the distal side of the flap in group III and group IV, than those of group I and group II. At 7 days post surgery, significantly lower flap survival rates were observed in group III (81.9 ± 5.7%) and group IV (78.4 ± 6.5%), compared to observed in group I (97.2 ± 3.0%) and group II (94.2 ± 6.2%).

Conclusions

It might be arterial insufficiency, not venous congestion, which mainly caused the distal necrosis of the DIEP flap in rat. Arterial instead of venous supercharging might be a more effective procedure that improves circulation to zone IV of the flap.

Improved pocket control in immediate microsurgical breast reconstruction with simultaneous implant placement through the use of mesh

BACKGROUND

Autologous breast reconstruction is associated with long-term patient satisfaction that is superior to implant-based approaches. Occasionally, however, patients who desire autologous reconstruction present with inadequate donor-site volume. A hybrid approach, combining free flap reconstruction with simultaneous implant placement, is a solution. We present our experience with the use of mesh for improved pocket control using this reconstructive modality.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction was performed. Patients who underwent bilateral immediate breast reconstruction with free microsurgical abdominal tissue transfer with simultaneous implant placement were included for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients (38 breasts) with a mean age of 42.7 years (range, 31-57 years) and mean BMI of 26.3 (range, 23.6-30.8) were included in the study. No flap loss or implant-related complications were encountered during a mean follow-up of 14.2 months. The most common implant volume was 150 cc (N = 15; [78.9%]). No patient requested an implant change due to malposition or insufficient volume. Secondary fat grafting was performed in 5 patients (26.3%), 4 of which had undergone adjuvant radiotherapy. Three cases of red breast syndrome were observed following acellular dermal matrix placement. This prompted a transition to using polyglactin mesh thereafter without any untoward sequelae.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal flap transfer with simultaneous implant placement is a safe reconstructive option in select patients. Improved implant pocket control is achieved through the use of mesh, thus, minimizing problems related to implant malposition. Adjuvant radiotherapy does not appear to put the reconstruction at risk with the occasional flap volume loss being easily remedied by secondary fat grafting.