Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. Abdomen

Small flaps in microsurgical breast reconstruction: Selection between the profunda artery perforator and small deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps and associated outcomes and complications

BACKGROUND

The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is widely used in breast reconstruction and the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap as alternative. However, the difference between the two flaps in smaller breast reconstruction remains lacking, in particular, the donor site complications. In this case series, the results of small breast reconstruction (≤300 g) using PAP or small DIEP flaps were explored.

METHODS

Unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using a free PAP flap or small DIEP flap (≤300 g) from 2011 to 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Excluding patients with delayed reconstruction, 28 patients, including 17 PAP flaps and 11 small DIEP flaps were enrolled. Flap characteristics, breast and donor site complications, and revision surgeries were reviewed. BREAST-Q™ was used for quality-of-life assessment.

RESULTS

Compared with a small DIEP flap, a PAP flap was narrow (7.5 ± 1.1 vs. 10.6 ± 0.7 cm, p < .001), short (20.0 ± 2.6 vs. 25.5 ± 1.8 cm, p < .001) and had a shorter pedicle (5.9 ± 1.6 vs. 9.1 ± 1.0 cm, p < .001). There were no significant differences in acute and late complications of wound healing and fat necrosis, but the average number of revisions in the PAP group was significantly higher (1.9 ± 1.3 vs. 0.8 ± 1.4, p = .041). Patient-reported outcomes using BREAST-Q™ displayed no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of PAP and small DIEP flaps at the breasts and donor sites are satisfactory, despite that a higher tendency of donor site complications in PAP flap and more aesthetic refinement required in the PAP group. The overall outcomes are acceptable.

The transverse upper gracilis flap for autologous breast reconstruction: patient satisfaction outcomes from a single centre experience

Background

The transverse upper gracilis (TUG) flap procedure is an alternative procedure for autologous breast reconstruction, that is indicated in patients with a low body mass index (BMI) and small to moderate sized breasts. We investigated patient satisfaction of all TUG flap breast reconstructions at Royal Free Hospital.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients who had undergone a TUG flap procedure was performed using Electronic Patient Records between October 2010 and October 2021 in Royal Free Hospital. We collected patient demographic data and surveyed our cohort by telephone, investigating patient satisfaction with a 31-item questionnaire.

Results

From 2010 to 2021, 57 TUG procedures for autologous breast reconstruction were carried out on 36 patients. One patient died 6 years postoperatively. Patient age ranged from 29-74 with an average of 49.5 years. Also, 3/57 flaps failed, and 1 patient died 6 years postoperatively. Twenty one out of 35 patients responded to the telephone call survey. Out of the survey respondents 11/21 underwent unilateral breast reconstruction and 10/21 underwent bilateral breast reconstruction. The BODY-Q scale in appraisal of thighs reported an overall patient satisfaction mean score of 75.6±27.4 points. The BREAST-Q scale in breast satisfaction reported an overall patient satisfaction mean score of 61.5±24.1 points. Overall, 19/21 of patients were satisfied with the outcome of the TUG procedure.

Conclusions

Royal Free Hospital reported excellent patient satisfaction scores. The TUG procedure is a suitable method for patient's undergoing autologous breast reconstruction. However, patient expectations regarding breast satisfaction should be managed.

Long-Term Results after Autologous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP versus PAP Flaps Based on Quality of Life and Aesthetic Outcome Analysis

(1) Background: This work aimed to conduct a comparative study, providing long-term data about patient-reported outcome measures and donor site scar assessments, as well as an aesthetic evaluation of the reconstructed breasts in patients with DIEP versus PAP flap breast reconstruction. (2) Methods: This prospective, single-center, matched cohort study included a total of 36 patients after DIEP and PAP flap breast reconstruction. The evaluation was carried out using the Breast-Q and POSAS questionnaire, as well as the Breast Aesthetic Scale for cosmetic analysis, by four plastic surgeons. (3) Results: The postoperative Breast-Q evaluation revealed no significant differences between both patient groups for the categories of the physical well-being of the donor site, the physical well-being of the breast, and satisfaction with the breast. A scar evaluation of the donor site region showed equivalent results for the thigh and abdomen regions, concerning the overall opinion of the patients and the observers. There was no significant difference between both methods of reconstruction for all aspects of breast aesthetics. (4) Conclusions: Similar results for donor site morbidity, scar quality, and the aesthetic outcome of the breasts in both the DIEP and PAP patient groups have been demonstrated. Hence, in those cases suitable for both types of reconstruction, the decision can be based on factors such as patients' lifestyles, leisure activities, and preferences.