Outcome after urgent microvascular revision of free DIEP, SIEA and SGAP flaps for autologous breast reconstruction

被引:26
作者
Vanschoonbeek, A. [1 ]
Fabre, G. [1 ]
Nanhekhan, L. [1 ]
Vandevoort, M. [1 ]
机构
[1] KULeuven, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Univ Hosp Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
关键词
Breast reconstruction; Microvascular free flap; Revision; Salvage; Outcome; EPIGASTRIC PERFORATOR FLAP; SPARING FREE TRAM; DONOR-SITE MORBIDITY; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; VENOUS CONGESTION; RECENT EXPERIENCE; MUSCLE; ARTERY; COMPLICATIONS; AUGMENTATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.bjps.2016.09.017
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Microvascular complications after free flap breast reconstruction are devastating, and revision of a compromised breast reconstruction is very challenging. The aim of this study was to review the different characteristics of urgent microvascular revision in DIEP, SIEA and SGAP flaps and to evaluate the final outcome after revision. Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who underwent an autologous breast reconstruction with a DIEP, SIEA or SGAP flap at the University Hospitals of Leuven between August 1997 and December 2013. The number of revisions, time to revision, reason for revision, and outcome after microvascular free flap revision were analysed. Results: A total of 1562 free flaps were evaluated during the study period, of which 4.42% required urgent exploration. DIEP flaps (3.38%) had a statistically significant lower revision rate than SIEA flaps (11.76%) and SGAP flaps (8.42%). Venous insufficiency was the main reason for revision of DIEP flaps (86.7%) and SGAP flaps (62.5%). SIEA flaps mostly failed because of an arterial problem (62.5%). SIEA flaps (62.5%) had a higher revision failure rate than DIEP flaps (37.8%) and SGAP flaps (12.5%). We found a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in the outcome of revision in DIEP flaps in correlation to the time to revision. Our overall flap failure rate was 1.79% (DIEP 1.28%; SIEA 7.35%; SGAP 1.05%). Conclusions: The DIEP flap remains the most reliable flap for microvascular breast reconstructions. SIEA flaps are only performed when no suitable perforator for a DIEP flap is present. Multiple revisions are no longer performed, as the outcome after more than one revision is very disappointing. The difference in reason for revision between the different flaps led to the introduction of some technical refinements. (C) 2016 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1598 / 1608
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Comparison of SIEA/SCIA and DIEP Flaps for Autologous Breast Reconstruction
    Somers, Sydney
    Foley, Brittany
    Dadzie, Aaron
    Hart, Chase
    Chen, Joanna
    Bautista, Catherine H.
    Scott, Kaylee
    Eddington, Devin
    Agarwal, Jayant P.
    Kwok, Alvin C.
    JOURNAL OF RECONSTRUCTIVE MICROSURGERY, 2025,
  • [2] Long-Term Results after Autologous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP versus PAP Flaps Based on Quality of Life and Aesthetic Outcome Analysis
    Augustin, Angela
    Morandi, Evi M. M.
    Winkelmann, Selina
    Schoberleitner, Ines
    Egle, Daniel
    Ritter, Magdalena
    Bauer, Thomas
    Wachter, Tanja
    Wolfram, Dolores
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (03)
  • [3] Perforator Number Predicts Fat Necrosis in a Prospective Analysis of Breast Reconstruction with Free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA Flaps
    Baumann, Donald P.
    Lin, Heather Y.
    Chevray, Pierre M.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2010, 125 (05) : 1335 - 1341
  • [4] Meta-analysis of the Safety and Factors Contributing to Complications of MS-TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA Flaps for Breast Reconstruction
    Wang, Xiao-Li
    Liu, Lin-Bo
    Song, Feng-Min
    Wang, Qi-Ying
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2014, 38 (04) : 681 - 691
  • [5] Changes in the Microcirculation and Physiologic Perfusion Dynamics of Free DIEP Flaps in the First 72 h After Breast Reconstruction
    Ehrl, Denis
    Alt, Verena
    Taha, Sara
    Frank, Konstantin
    Wachtel, Nikolaus
    Bodenschatz, Karl J.
    Demmer, Wolfram
    Fuchs, Benedikt
    Giunta, Riccardo E.
    Moellhoff, Nicholas
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2025, 14 (02)
  • [6] Stacked TUG and DIEP flaps to reconstruct a single breast: Expanding the scope of autologous breast reconstruction
    Roggio, Tiziana
    Pantelides, Nicholas M.
    Morgan, Mary
    Ramakrishnan, Venkat
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2022, 75 (09) : 2974 - 2981
  • [7] Secondary solution for breast reconstruction following total DIEP flap loss: A single-center experience after 3270 DIEP flaps
    Musmann, R. J.
    Andree, C.
    Munder, B.
    Hagouan, M.
    Janku, D.
    Daniels, M.
    Aufmesser-Freyhardt, B.
    Becker, K.
    Oramary, A.
    Bromba, A.
    Stockhausen, N.
    Wolter, A.
    Fertsch, S.
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2024, 92 : 11 - 25
  • [8] A Prospective Study Comparing the Functional Impact of SIEA, DIEP, and Muscle-Sparing Free TRAM Flaps on the Abdominal Wall: Part I. Unilateral Reconstruction
    Selber, Jesse C.
    Nelson, Jonas
    Fosnot, Joshua
    Goldstein, Jesse
    Bergey, Meredith
    Sonnad, Seema S.
    Serletti, Joseph M.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2010, 126 (04) : 1142 - 1153
  • [9] Stacked free hemi-DIEP flaps: a method of autologous breast reconstruction in a patient with midline abdominal scarring
    Ali, RS
    Garrido, A
    Ramakrishnan, V
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2002, 55 (04): : 351 - 353
  • [10] Meta-analysis of the Safety and Factors Contributing to Complications of MS-TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA Flaps for Breast Reconstruction
    Xiao-Li Wang
    Lin-Bo Liu
    Feng-Min Song
    Qi-Ying Wang
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2014, 38 : 681 - 691