Incorporation of a Preexisting Scar in the Star-Flap Technique for Nipple Reconstruction

Influence of Flap Thickness on Nipple Projection After Nipple Reconstruction Using a Modified Star Flap

BACKGROUND

In nipple reconstruction, the width, length, and thickness of modified star flaps are concerns for long-term reconstructed nipple projection. However, the flap's projection has not been analyzed, based on its thickness. The aim of the present study was to investigate how flap thickness in a modified star flap influences the resulting reconstructed nipple and achieves an appropriate flap width in design.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients who underwent nipple reconstruction using a modified star flap following implant-based breast reconstruction between August 2014 and July 2016 were included in this case-controlled study. The length of laterally diverging flaps was 1.5 times their width. The thickness of each flap was measured using ultrasonography, and the average thickness was defined as the flap thickness. We investigated the correlation between the resulting reconstructed nipple and flap thickness, and the difference of the change in the reconstructed nipple projection after using a thin or thick flap.

RESULTS

The average flap thickness was 3.8 ± 1.7 (range 2.5-6.0) mm. There was a significant, linear correlation between the flap thickness and resulting reconstructed nipple projection (β = 0.853, p < 0.01). Furthermore, the difference between the thin and thick flaps in the resulting reconstructed nipple projection was significant (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Measuring the flap thickness preoperatively may allow surgeons to achieve an appropriate flap width; otherwise, alternative methods for higher projection might be used.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Breast surgery under local anesthesia: second-stage implant exchange, nipple flap reconstruction, and breast augmentation

Breast reconstruction can be performed safely with local anesthesia. Utilization of the star flap method in conjunction with tattooing successfully provides optimal aesthetic results without the need for an additional donor site. When tissue expander to silicon implant exchange is part of the operative plan, use of triple antibiotic irrigation as well as the Keller Funnel is recommended. Breast augmentation and breast augmentation-mastopexy can also be performed with good results under local anesthetic in a private operating room setting. All other operative conditions, including sterility and sound operative surgical techniques, should be the mainstay of any practice.

Flap survival after previous vascular pedicle division and preexisting scar formation at the pedicle site: an experimental study

BACKGROUND

We conducted an experimental study to investigate if it would be possible to re-elevate a flap at a standard flap site if its vascular pedicle was mutilated previously and there was a preexisting scar formation at the pedicle site.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into 3 groups. In the control group (n = 5), animals received a procedure in which unilateral axial pattern abdominal flap was elevated, and then sutured to its original place. The remaining 2 groups underwent 2-stage procedures. In the first stage, scar tissue was created with either a skin incision (group 2, n = 15) or excision (group 3, n = 15) at the prospective pedicle site of the abdominal flap. In the second stage, abdominal flap was raised in 5 rats as a scar-pedicled flap at day 7, day 21, and day 42. Flaps were sutured in their places. Seven days later, flap survival was evaluated.

RESULTS

Control flaps had complete survival (day 7, 95.5%; day 21, 94.8%; and day 42, 94.5%). Group 2 and group 3 flaps raised on day 7 (group 2, 65.4%; group 3, 63.9%) and on day 21 (group 2, 65.7%; group 3, 66.7%) showed decreased survival compared to control group flaps (P < 0.05). On day 42, group 1 flaps had better survival when compared to group 2 flaps (82.6% vs 70.0%, P < 0.05). Group 1 flaps showed progressive vascular network formation as evidenced by contrast medium first in the proximal two thirds of the flaps on day 7, and later via visualization of the axial pattern vascular tree on day 42. In group 3, approximately half of the flap was filled with barium contrast and no single pedicle was identified on day 42.

CONCLUSIONS

Preexisting scar tissue and pedicle division in the pedicle site of a standard flap diminished dimensions of surviving flap when compared to control flaps. Incision-scar-pedicled flaps achieved better survival compared to excision-group flaps, particularly in the late postoperative period. The study findings showed that it may be possible to raise a flap from previously mutilated site secondary to scar formation and pedicle injury.