Refining the Rib-sparing Approach in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: Keys to Success

Background Free tissue transfer using microsurgical techniques is a popular option for breast reconstruction, and the internal mammary vessels remain the most popular recipient vessels for the anastomosis. Traditionally, ribs were resected for better access to these vessels in the intercostal space. However, rib resection has the potential for complications and adds a surgical step. Here, the authors evaluate and compare both techniques in a retrospective study as well as offer technical pearls. Methods The 400 most recent consecutive patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. 54 patients underwent the traditional rib-resecting approach. 346 patients underwent the rib-sparing approach, which was the preferred approach of the senior author, when possible. Patients requiring the rib-resecting approach were distributed evenly throughout the series. Primary outcomes were any immediate post-operative complications. Results Between the two clinical groups, there was no difference between demographic or clinical details, the flap type, history of previous radiation, or timing of reconstruction. Complications of any kind as well as the subset of complications were significantly more frequent in the rib resection than in the rib-sparing group. Specifically, the rate of reanastomosis was higher in the rib resection group [10.6 vs 2.7%, p < 0.001] as was the frequency of return to the OR in the immediate post-operative setting [3.0 vs 0.3%, p < 0.001]. There is a 4.50 odds ratio of having a complication in a rib resection case versus rib sparing [CI: 1.97–10.30, p < 0.001]. All cases were initiated with the intent to perform a rib-sparing approach if possible, and they were converted to a rib-resection approach as needed. Conclusion In the largest reported series to date, the rib-sparing approach is demonstrated to be both safe and efficacious in microsurgical breast reconstruction.

Necrosis or Flap Loss After Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Reconstruction: Impact of Perforators and Recipient Vessels

Background The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of the number and location of perforators harvested and the recipient vessels used on deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap survival and the occurrence of flap necrosis requiring re-operation. Patients and Methods Four hundred and seventy-one DIEP flap reconstructions, performed between January 2008 and December 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. Results Flap necrosis requiring re-operation was observed in 40 (9%) of flaps and total flap loss rate was 1% (n = 6). No significant differences were observed between internal mammary vessels (IMV, n = 287, 61%) and thoracodorsal vessels (TDV, n = 184, 39%) regarding postoperative re-anastomosis (p = 0.529) or flap survival (p = 0.646). Intraoperative conversion from IMV to TDV was performed on 64 (14%) patients. TDV were more commonly associated with problems in preparation of the vessels than IMV (p < 0.001). Second vein anastomosis was performed on 18 (4%) patients. In total, 81 flaps (17%) had one perforator, 165 (35%) had two, 218 (46%) had three to five, and 7 (2%) had more than five perforators. Flaps with three to five perforators were more commonly associated with flap necrosis (p < 0.001) than flaps with one or two perforators. Independent factors associated with necrosis were body mass index (BMI) > 30 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.28; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.91, p = 0.035) and perforator/s located on the lateral row (OR: 3.08, 95% CI 1.29–7.33, p = 0.011). Conclusion We conclude that the occurrence of flap necrosis requiring re-operation may be higher in DIEP flaps with more than two perforators or perforator/s located on the lateral row and in obese patients. Neither the recipient vessels used nor the number of perforators harvested had any impact on the flap survival rate.

Comparison of the second and third intercostal spaces regarding the use of internal mammary vessels as recipient vessels in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: An anatomical and clinical study

Background The purpose of this study was to compare the anatomical features of the internal mammary vessels (IMVs) at the second and third intercostal spaces (ICSs) with regard to their use as recipient vessels in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction.Methods A total of 38 consecutive DIEP breast reconstructions in 36 patients were performed using IMVs as recipient vessels between March 2017 and August 2018. The intraoperative findings and postoperative complications were analyzed. Anatomical analyses were performed using intraoperative measurements and computed tomography (CT) angiographic images.Results CT angiographic analysis revealed the mean diameter of the deep inferior epigastric artery to be 2.42±0.27 mm, while that of the deep inferior epigastric vein was 2.91±0.30 mm. A larger mean vessel diameter was observed at the second than at the third ICS for both the internal mammary artery (2.26±0.32 mm vs. 1.99±0.33 mm, respectively; P=0.001) and the internal mammary vein (IMv) (2.52±0.46 mm vs. 2.05±0.42 mm, respectively; P<0.001). Similarly, the second ICS was wider than the third (18.08±3.72 mm vs. 12.32±2.96 mm, respectively; P<0.001) and the distance from the medial sternal border to the medial IMv was greater (9.49±2.28 mm vs. 7.18±2.13 mm, respectively; P<0.001). Bifurcations of the IMv were found in 18.4% of cases at the second ICS and in 63.2% of cases at the third ICS.Conclusions The IMVs at the second ICS had more favorable anatomic features for use as recipient vessels in DIEP flap breast reconstruction than those at the third ICS.