The Versatility of Lateral Chest Wall Perforator Flaps in Immediate and Delayed Breast Reconstruction: Retrospective Study of Clinical Experience with 26 Patients

Local Flaps to Cover Skin Necrosis after Skin-sparing Mastectomy and Prepectoral Reconstruction from PreQ-20 Trial

Background

In recent years, mastectomy has increasingly been indicated for women at high risk and those with breast cancer. Prepectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implant is an option for these patients. Nevertheless, this procedure can become complicated with exposure of the implant. The aim of this article is to describe the feasibility of local flaps to treat skin necrosis and dehiscence after prepectoral reconstruction and its impact on implant loss.

Methods

This study includes the women who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the PreQ-20 protocol (12), which assessed patients with exposed implant who required a local flap for its coverage. Three types of flaps were used: thoracoepigastric, lateral thoracic, and batwing.

Results

The study included 226 skin-sparing mastectomies and immediate reconstruction using prepectoral implants (52.7% bilateral mastectomies). Some 20.9% of the patients showed complications, with wound dehiscence the most frequent. Thirteen local flaps to cover the implant were performed. All flaps presented appropriate perfusion; however, the implant cover failed in six patients (46.2%).

Conclusions

The use of local flaps can be a low-morbidity option for preventing implant loss when skin dehiscence or necrosis occurs and delays in oncology treatments.

Pushing the Boundaries of Pedicled Chest Wall Perforator Flaps in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery

Among 145 chest wall perforator flaps (CWPFs) performed at City Hospital, Birmingham (September 2017-February 2022), 11 were for novel indications, four were for whole breast reconstructions, two were for implant salvage procedures, three were CWPFs with skin paddle to replace excised skin/nipple-areola complex, and two were for upper inner quadrant tumours. Tumour characteristics and post-operative complications were noted. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were measured using a questionnaire adapted from the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit (NMBRA) study. Among 11 patients, nine (81.81%) did not develop any complications. Ten patients responded to PROMs (median follow-up of eight months). The PROMs assessment showed that all patients (100%) were satisfied with the post-operative breast appearance. Of the patients, 90% (9/10) felt the results of their surgery to be good, very good, or excellent. Of the patients, 70% (7/10) said that they have no/little persistent pain. None of the patients had difficulty carrying out normal activities. Thus, the applications of CWPFs could be extended for whole breast reconstruction, implant salvage procedures, where skin paddle is needed, and for upper inner quadrant tumours.

Algorithms for perforator-based flaps in different anatomical locations

Introduction: Perforator-based flaps can be planned in any anatomic location in the body when there is a detectable perforator. Although preoperative perforator mapping ensures safety and versatility of these flaps, there is no consensus yet about flap planning in different anatomical locations. Material and Method: 28 patients underwent perforator-based flap surgery for different anatomical locations as face (5), sternum (3), back (5), lomber (4), sacral (4) and scrotal (4) areas, leg (2) and foot (1). 19 of the patients were male while 9 were female. The mean age was 58.1±13.5 (22-80 years). Perforator-based flaps were planned as V-Y design in face, sacral and scrotal areas while as perforator plus transposition flaps for lomber area, leg and sternum. On the other hand, for foot the flap was planned as subcutaneous-pedicled turnover flap. Results: The mean follow-up time was 10 months (3-36 months). Partial flap necrosis is seen in all 3 patients who had underwent flap surgery on the lower extremity. There were no other complications seen in short- or long-term follow-ups. Comorbid diseases were not statistically significant on complications rates (P>0.05). Conclusion: V-Y flap for the face and the sacral area; and perforator plus transposition flap for back ,lomber area and sternum are suggested as the ideal flap modifications for these anatomical locations. On the other hand, perforator-based flaps should not be used as a first choice in reconstruction of lower extremity defects.