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

被引:23
|
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] Bilateral Autologous Reconstruction from Different Sites: Indications and Outcomes after DIEP and SGAP Flaps
    Reddy, Sashank K.
    Colakoglu, Salih
    Curtis, Michael S.
    Tobias, Adam M.
    Lin, Samuel J.
    Lee, Bernard T.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 127 (06) : 151E - 153E
  • [2] Breast Reconstruction with SIEA- and DIEP-Flaps in Obesity Patients
    Rau, A. D.
    Geisweid, A.
    Martin, N.
    Busse, F.
    OBESITY SURGERY, 2011, 21 (08) : 1030 - 1031
  • [3] Breast reconstruction with DIEP and SIEA flaps in patients with prior abdominal liposuction
    Zavlin, Dmitry
    Jubbal, Kevin T.
    Ellsworth, Warren A.
    Spiegel, Aldona J.
    MICROSURGERY, 2018, 38 (04) : 413 - 418
  • [4] Internal mammary perforator recipient vessels for breast reconstruction using free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps
    Saint-Cyr, Michel
    Chang, David W.
    Robb, Geoffrey L.
    Chevray, Pierre M.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2007, 120 (07) : 1769 - 1773
  • [5] Internal mammary perforator recipient vessels for breast reconstruction using free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps
    Munhoz, Alexandre Mendonca
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2008, 122 (01) : 315 - 316
  • [6] Autologous Breast Reconstruction with SIEA Flaps: Patient Selection and Limitation
    Ouyang, Yiye
    Li, Chengcheng
    Du, Xingyi
    Ma, Xiaomu
    Liu, Chunjun
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 44 (02) : 619 - 620
  • [7] Autologous Breast Reconstruction with SIEA Flaps: An Alternative in Selected Cases
    Lisanne Grünherz
    Andreas Wolter
    Christoph Andree
    Lukas Grüter
    Katinka Staemmler
    Beatrix Munder
    Tino Schulz
    Peter Stambera
    Mazen Hagouan
    Olaf Fleischer
    Katrin Seidenstücker
    Alina Abu-Gazaleh
    Sonia Fertsch
    Mohammed Aldeeri
    Firas Kour
    Julia Kornetka
    Birgit Aufmesser
    Oliver Christian Thamm
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2020, 44 : 299 - 306
  • [8] Autologous Breast Reconstruction with SIEA Flaps: An Alternative in Selected Cases
    Gruenherz, Lisanne
    Wolter, Andreas
    Andree, Christoph
    Grueter, Lukas
    Staemmler, Katinka
    Munder, Beatrix
    Schulz, Tino
    Stambera, Peter
    Hagouan, Mazen
    Fleischer, Olaf
    Seidenstuecker, Katrin
    Abu-Gazaleh, Alina
    Fertsch, Sonia
    Aldeeri, Mohammed
    Kour, Firas
    Kornetka, Julia
    Aufmesser, Birgit
    Thamm, Oliver Christian
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 44 (02) : 299 - 306
  • [9] Autologous Breast Reconstruction with SIEA Flaps: Patient Selection and Limitation
    Yiye Ouyang
    Chengcheng Li
    Xingyi Du
    Xiaomu Ma
    Chunjun Liu
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2020, 44 : 619 - 620
  • [10] Perforator Number Predicts Fat Necrosis in a Prospective Analysis of Breast Reconstruction with Free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA Flaps
    Rozen, Warren M.
    Whitaker, Iain S.
    Chubb, Daniel
    Ashton, Mark W.
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2010, 126 (06) : 2286 - 2288