Improving the Safety of DIEP Flap Transplantation: Detailed Perforator Anatomy Study Using Preoperative CTA

Background: Deep inferior epigastric perforator and muscle sparing transverse rectus abdominis muscle flaps are commonly used flaps for autologous breast reconstruction. CT-angiography allows to analyse the perforator course preoperatively. Our aim was to compare the different aspects of perforator anatomy in the most detailed study. Methods: CT-angiographies of 300 female patients with autologous breast reconstruction of 10 years were analysed regarding the anatomy of the deep inferior epigastric artery and every perforator. Results: Overall, 2260 perforators were included. We identified correlations regarding the DIEA branching point and number of perforators and their intramuscular course. The largest perforator emerged more often from the medial branch of the DIEA than the smaller perforators (70% (416/595) vs. 54% (878/1634), p < 0.001) and more often had a direct connection to the SIEV (large 67% (401/595) vs. small 39% (634/1634), p < 0.01). Medial row perforators were larger than the laterals (lateral 1.44 mm ± 0.43 (n = 941) vs. medial 1.58 mm ± 0.52 (n = 1304) (p < 0.001)). The larger and more medial the perforator, the more likely it was connected to the SIEV: perforators with direct connection to the SIEV had a diameter of 1.65 mm ± 0.53 (n = 1050), perforators with indirect connection had a diameter of 1.43 ± 0.43 (n = 1028), perforators without connection had a diameter of 1.31 mm ± 0.37 (n = 169) (p < 0.001). Medial perforators were more often directly connected to the SIEV than lateral perforators (medial 56% (723/1302) vs. lateral 35% (327/941), p < 0.001). A lateral perforator more often had a short intramuscular course than medial perforators (69% (554/800) vs. 45% (474/1055), p < 0.001), which was also more often observed in the case of a small perforator and a caudal exit of the rectus sheath. Conclusion: The largest perforator emerges more often from the medial branch of the DIEA and frequently has a direct connection to the SIEV, making medial row perforators ideal for DIEP flap transplantation.

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

Over the past several decades, technical advances in breast reconstruction have resulted in the development of flaps that are aimed at progressively decreasing abdominal wall morbidity. There is, however, ongoing controversy related to the superiority of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps over muscle-sparing TRAM (MS-TRAM) flaps. Hence, the question remains unanswered as to which approach should be considered the standard of care, and more importantly, whether the rate of DIEP flap utilization should be considered a quality metric in breast reconstruction. In this review article, we examine the literature pertaining to abdominal free tissue transfer in breast reconstruction from both donor site and flap characteristics as well as the resultant complications and morbidity. The impact on the donor site remains a prevailing principle for autologous breast reconstruction; thus, must be adequately respected when classifying what is left behind following flap harvest. The most commonly used nomenclature is too simplistic. This, in turn, leads to inadequate incorporation of critical variables, such as degree of muscular preservation, fascial involvement, mesh implantation, and segmental nerve anatomy. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support DIEP flap harvest as a quality indicator in breast reconstruction, as DIEP flap outcomes are not clearly superior when compared with MS-TRAM flaps.