scholarly journals The Deep Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Un lambeau perforateur de l’artère iliaque circonflexe profonde pour la reconstruction mammaire

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 229-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Elzinga ◽  
Edward Buchel
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Iliac Artery ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Perforator Flap ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Diep Flap ◽  
Deep Circumflex Iliac Artery ◽  
Epigastric Artery ◽  
Early Results ◽  
Aesthetic Results

Autologous breast reconstruction using abdominal-based perforator flaps produces excellent aesthetic results with minimal donor site morbidity. The superficial inferior epigastric artery and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps reliably perfuse a hemi-abdomen, up to the anterior axillary line. Beyond this line laterally, the flank or “love handle” tissue is primarily perfused by the deep circumflex iliac artery (DCIA) or secondarily by the superficial circumflex iliac artery. The flank tissue is a valuable addition to increase flap size when harvested with a DIEP flap or to provide vascularized tissue when the abdomen has been previously harvested. Harvesting the flank tissue in combination with the anterior abdominal tissue improves the contour of the trunk, accentuates the waist, and minimizes secondary revisions to excise prominent “dogears.” The DCIA flap is a novel technique for breast reconstruction. In this article, we describe our technique, pearls and pitfalls, and early results.

Alternative flaps for microsurgical breast reconstruction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1107-1114
Author(s):  
Hinne A. Rakhorst
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Perforator Flap ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
The Body ◽  
Diep Flap ◽  
Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator ◽  
Muscle Sparing ◽  
Breast Reconstructive Surgery

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.

scholarly journals Our early experience in immediate total breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 4444
Author(s):  
Thyagaraj . ◽  
Ashrith Iyanahally ◽  
B. G. Tilak ◽  
M. E. Sham ◽  
Ganesh .
Keyword(s):  
Donor Site ◽  
Perforator Flap ◽  
Breast Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Diep Flap ◽  
Inferior Epigastric Artery ◽  
Aesthetic Result ◽  
Epigastric Artery ◽  
Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery ◽  
Artery Perforator

Background: As the breast cancer diagnosis has increased over recent years, patient have become more informative regarding treatment and reconstructive options, hence the expectation of the results will be very high. Reconstruction of breast with best result and less donor site morbidity is the target.Methods: A total of 20 cases were studied between January 2018 to January 2019 at our hospital to assess the outcome of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap for immediate breast reconstruction.Results: A total of twenty DIEP flaps were performed. Mean time required for flap harvest was 125 minutes, and time taken for flap inset was 110 minutes. There was no flap loss in any of the twenty cases. Two patients had fat necrosis. All patients were satisfied with aesthetic outcome.Conclusions: DIEP flap has good aesthetic result with less donor site morbidity.

Donor Site Morbidity after Lumbar Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dries Opsomer ◽  
Tom Vyncke ◽  
Michelle Ryx ◽  
Koenraad Van Landuyt ◽  
Phillip Blondeel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Perforator Flap ◽  
Significant Risk Factor ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Diep Flap ◽  
Lumbar Artery ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Artery Perforator

Abstract Background The lumbar artery perforator flap is a second-choice flap in autologous breast reconstruction whenever a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is not possible. Ideal candidates are pear-shaped women who do not have enough bulk on the abdomen or thighs. Patient-reported “satisfaction with breasts” is excellent but we were curious about the donor site morbidity. Methods We performed a retrospective study of all lumbar flap breast reconstructions performed between 2010 and 2019. Patients were invited by e-mail and telephone to take part in a BREAST-Q survey. Results One hundred fifty-four flaps were performed in 110 patients. Sixty-three patients filled out the BREAST-Q questionnaire. The most frequently observed donor site complications are seroma (35.1%), dehiscence (8.4%), and hematoma (3.2%). Correction of the donor site scar was performed in 31.8% of patients, lipofilling of the donor flank in 5.2%, and liposuction of the contralateral flank in 18.3% of patients. Body mass index (BMI) was the only significant risk factor for donor site complications. Patient-reported “satisfaction with donor site appearance” was good but significantly lower for primary reconstructions compared with secondary and tertiary procedures. Flap weight significantly influences patient-reported “physical wellbeing of the donor site.” Ninety-seven percent of patients would recommend the surgery to someone in a similar position and would do it all over. Conclusion The lumbar artery perforator flap is a good alternative for breast reconstruction in selected patients. The donor site issues consist mainly of seromas, prolonged discomfort, and a scar that might be noticeable to others, but patient-reported satisfaction is very high.

Analysis of patient satisfaction and donor-site morbidity after different types of breast reconstruction

2014 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. C. Benditte-Klepetko ◽  
F. Lutgendorff ◽  
T. Kästenbauer ◽  
M. Deutinger ◽  
C. M. A. M. van der Horst
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Latissimus Dorsi ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Perforator Flap ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator ◽  
Types Of Breast Reconstruction

Background and Aims: Breast reconstruction has been shown to improve quality of life. However, factors involved in long-term patient satisfaction are largely unknown. Our aim was to evaluate patient satisfaction and donor-site morbidity in five types of breast reconstruction. Material and Methods: A prospectively collected database of all breast surgery patients at Hospital Rudolfstiftung, Vienna, Austria, was searched for five types of breast reconstruction (2000–2006): implant, latissimus dorsi-flap, latissimus dorsi-flap with implant, free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous-flap, and deep inferior epigastric perforator-flap. Patients were sent a study-specific questionnaire to assess satisfaction. Short-form 36-item health survey was used to analyze (quality of life), and complication data were retrieved from the database and assessed during a follow-up visit. Results: There were 257 patients identified, of whom, 126 responded to the survey (17 implant, 5 latissimus dorsi + implant, 64 latissimus dorsi, 22 transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous, and 18 deep inferior epigastric perforator reconstructions). No statistical differences were found in complication or reoperation rates. Deep inferior epigastric perforator–flap patients were significantly more satisfied compared to patients from the implant group ( p = 0.007). However, there was no significant difference regarding quality of life scores among the groups. After logistic regression analysis, only “impairment on daily life” showed to be independently correlated with patient satisfaction. This contrary to both operation type and complication rate which did not correlate with patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Our results indicate that operation type, complication rate, and revision rate did not independently correlate with patient satisfaction. Therefore, to further improve patient satisfaction, future research should be focused on other pro-operative factors, for example, patient education, expectations, and personality characteristics.

Time and Speed of Vascular Pedicle Dissection in Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Elevation

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (08) ◽  
pp. 557-562
Author(s):  
Ji Yim ◽  
Yeon Lee ◽  
Young Kim ◽  
Eun Kim ◽  
Taik Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Free Flap ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Perforator Flap ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Vascular Pedicle ◽  
Inferior Epigastric Artery ◽  
Epigastric Artery ◽  
Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Artery Perforator

Background Breast reconstruction using deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) free flap is widely used because of the advantages of minimizing donor-site morbidity, but it requires technical competency in vascular dissection. This study evaluated the influence of patient factors and vascular status on the time and speed of dissection of the vascular pedicle. Methods DIEP free flap procedures were performed in 49 patients assigned to immediate or delayed reconstruction groups. Factors that significantly influenced the time required and the speed of dissection were evaluated. Results The average total dissection time was 55.9 minutes (34.5 minutes for the intramuscular dissection and 21.4 minutes for the submuscular dissection). The dissection speed for the total vascular pedicle was 2.65 cm/10 minutes (1.71 cm/10 minutes for the intramuscular dissection and 4.30 cm/10 minutes for the submuscular dissection). The presence of a Pfannenstiel scar, length of the vascular pedicle in the intramuscular area, and the number of microclips used significantly correlated with the total dissection time. Conclusion The length of the intramuscular pedicle, number of microclips used, and presence of a Pfannenstiel scar significantly correlated with the total dissection time of the vascular pedicle. An assessment prior to the surgery can reduce the time of operation and make it easier to elevate the flap.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document