3–57 Comparison of Donor-Site Complications and Functional Outcomes in Free Muscle-Sparing TRAM Flap and Free DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-294
Author(s):  
R.J. Allen ◽  
M.M. LoTempio
2021 ◽  
pp. 1107-1114
Author(s):  
Hinne A. Rakhorst

Microsurgery in general has made dramatic improvements over the past decades. This applies to microsurgery in general and to breast reconstructive surgery especially. The demand for autologous breast reconstruction has risen. Since the introduction of the free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, through the muscle-sparing TRAM, flaps designs have evolved into the current gold standard, the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. From experiences and increasing numbers of flap procedures performed by surgeons, techniques became more familiar and part of standard care. These factors gave rise to the development of a growing number of areas of the body where tissues of interest can be harvested using perforator flap-based techniques. This chapter discusses the most common as well as the ‘rising stars’ in terms of flaps to be used as alternative flaps to the DIEP flap for breast reconstruction. It discusses practical issues on dissection as well as donor site morbidity.


2015 ◽  
Vol 135 (4) ◽  
pp. 948-958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naveen M. Krishnan ◽  
Chad Purnell ◽  
Maurice Y. Nahabedian ◽  
Gary L. Freed ◽  
John F. Nigriny ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 118 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 102
Author(s):  
Liza C. Wu ◽  
Anureet Bajaj ◽  
David Woosuk Chang ◽  
Suyu Liu ◽  
Gregory D. Ayers ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick B. Garvey ◽  
Mark W. Clemens ◽  
Austin E. Hoy ◽  
Benjamin Smith ◽  
Hong Zhang ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Charles W. Patterson ◽  
Patrick A. Palines ◽  
Matthew J. Bartow ◽  
Daniel J. Womac ◽  
Jamie C. Zampell ◽  
...  

Abstract Background From both a medical and surgical perspective, obese breast cancer patients are considered to possess higher risk when undergoing autologous breast reconstruction relative to nonobese patients. However, few studies have evaluated the continuum of risk across the full range of obesity. This study sought to compare surgical risk between the three World Health Organization (WHO) classes of obesity in patients undergoing deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. Methods A retrospective review of 219 obese patients receiving 306 individual DIEP flaps was performed. Subjects were stratified into WHO obesity classes I (body mass index [BMI]: 30–34), II (BMI: 35–39), and III (BMI: ≥ 40) and assessed for risk factors and postoperative donor and recipient site complications. Results When examined together, the rate of any complication between the three groups only trended toward significance (p = 0.07), and there were no significant differences among rates of specific individual complications. However, logistic regression analysis showed that class III obesity was an independent risk factor for both flap (odds ratio [OR]: 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91–3.20, p = 0.03) and donor site (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.09–5.05, p = 0.03) complications. Conclusion DIEP breast reconstruction in the obese patient is more complex for both the patient and the surgeon. Although not a contraindication to undergoing surgery, obese patients should be diligently counseled regarding potential complications and undergo preoperative optimization of health parameters. Morbidly obese (class III) patients should be approached with additional caution, and perhaps even delay major reconstruction until specific BMI goals are met.


2019 ◽  
pp. 781-794
Author(s):  
Maurice Y. Nahabedian

The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and muscle-sparing (MS) free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps are arguably the most common flaps used for autologous breast reconstruction. The benefit of these flaps is that very little to no donor site muscle is harvested. The decision to use one or the other is occasionally made preoperatively based on body habitus but often intraoperatively based on the quality of the perforating vessels. The technical aspects of the operation are similar except for the actual dissection around the perforating vessels. Studies have demonstrated no significant differences in outcome when comparing the DIEP and MS free TRAM flaps.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document