No Skin Paddle, No Problem: Burying Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Flaps in the Immediate Setting is Safe in Select Patient Populations.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Journal of reconstructive microsurgery Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1055/a-2320-5665
Austin Lignieres, Doaa F Andejani, Carrie K Chu, Rene D Largo, Alexander F Mericli
{"title":"No Skin Paddle, No Problem: Burying Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Flaps in the Immediate Setting is Safe in Select Patient Populations.","authors":"Austin Lignieres, Doaa F Andejani, Carrie K Chu, Rene D Largo, Alexander F Mericli","doi":"10.1055/a-2320-5665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> In appropriately selected patients, it may be possible to fully bury breast free flaps deep to the mastectomy skin flaps. Because this practice forgoes the incorporation of a monitoring skin paddle for the flap, and thus limits the ability for physical exam, it may be associated with an increased risk of flap loss or other perfusion-related complications, such as fat necrosis. We hypothesized that fully de-epithelialized breast free flaps were not associated with an increased complication rate and reduced the need for future revision surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> A single-institution retrospective review of 206 deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flaps in 142 patients was performed between June 2016 and September 2021. Flaps were grouped into buried or nonburied categories based on the absence or presence of a monitoring paddle. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed postoperatively using the BREAST-Q breast reconstruction module. Electronic medical record data included demographics, comorbidities, flap characteristics, complications, and revision surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The buried flap patients (<i>N</i> = 46) had a lower median body mass index (26.9 vs 30.3, <i>p</i> = 0.04) and a lower rate of hypertension (19.5 vs. 37.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.04) compared with nonburied flap patients (<i>N</i> = 160). Burying flaps was more likely to be adopted in skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (<i>p</i> = 0.001) and in an immediate or a delayed-immediate fashion (<i>p</i> = 0.009). There was one flap loss in the nonburied group; complication rates were similar. There was a significantly greater revision rate in the nonburied flap patients (92 vs. 70%; <i>p</i> = 0.002). Buried flap patients exhibited a greater satisfaction with breasts (84.5 ± 13.4 vs. 73.9 ± 21.4; <i>p</i> = 0.04) and sexual satisfaction (73.1 ± 22.4 vs. 53.7 ± 29.7; <i>p</i> = 0.01) compared with nonburied flap patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Burying breast free flaps in appropriately selected patients does not appear to have a higher complication rate when compared with flaps with an externalized monitoring paddle. Furthermore, this modification may be associated with a better immediate aesthetic outcome and improved patient satisfaction, as evidenced by a lower rate of revision surgery and superior BREAST-Q scores among buried DIEP flaps.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":"722-729"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2320-5665","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  In appropriately selected patients, it may be possible to fully bury breast free flaps deep to the mastectomy skin flaps. Because this practice forgoes the incorporation of a monitoring skin paddle for the flap, and thus limits the ability for physical exam, it may be associated with an increased risk of flap loss or other perfusion-related complications, such as fat necrosis. We hypothesized that fully de-epithelialized breast free flaps were not associated with an increased complication rate and reduced the need for future revision surgery.

Methods:  A single-institution retrospective review of 206 deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flaps in 142 patients was performed between June 2016 and September 2021. Flaps were grouped into buried or nonburied categories based on the absence or presence of a monitoring paddle. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed postoperatively using the BREAST-Q breast reconstruction module. Electronic medical record data included demographics, comorbidities, flap characteristics, complications, and revision surgery.

Results:  The buried flap patients (N = 46) had a lower median body mass index (26.9 vs 30.3, p = 0.04) and a lower rate of hypertension (19.5 vs. 37.5%, p = 0.04) compared with nonburied flap patients (N = 160). Burying flaps was more likely to be adopted in skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (p = 0.001) and in an immediate or a delayed-immediate fashion (p = 0.009). There was one flap loss in the nonburied group; complication rates were similar. There was a significantly greater revision rate in the nonburied flap patients (92 vs. 70%; p = 0.002). Buried flap patients exhibited a greater satisfaction with breasts (84.5 ± 13.4 vs. 73.9 ± 21.4; p = 0.04) and sexual satisfaction (73.1 ± 22.4 vs. 53.7 ± 29.7; p = 0.01) compared with nonburied flap patients.

Conclusion:  Burying breast free flaps in appropriately selected patients does not appear to have a higher complication rate when compared with flaps with an externalized monitoring paddle. Furthermore, this modification may be associated with a better immediate aesthetic outcome and improved patient satisfaction, as evidenced by a lower rate of revision surgery and superior BREAST-Q scores among buried DIEP flaps.

没有皮瓣就没有问题:在特定患者群体中,立即埋藏 DIEP 皮瓣是安全的。
背景:由于立即埋藏游离皮瓣放弃了监测皮垫,可能会增加皮瓣脱落或其他灌注相关并发症(如脂肪坏死)的风险。我们假设,完全去表皮化的乳房游离皮瓣与并发症发生率增加无关,可减少未来翻修手术的需要,并且患者报告的结果更佳:2016年6月至2021年9月期间,对142名患者的206个DIEP皮瓣进行了单机构回顾性审查。根据监测垫的有无将皮瓣分为埋入型和非埋入型两类。术后使用 BREAST Q 乳房重建模块对患者报告的结果进行评估。电子病历数据包括人口统计学、合并症、皮瓣特征、并发症和翻修手术:与非埋入皮瓣患者(N=160)相比,埋入皮瓣患者(N=46)的中位体重指数较低(26.9 vs 30.3,P=0.04),高血压发病率较低(19.5% vs 37.5%,P=0.04)。与延迟重建相比,立即或延迟立即埋藏皮瓣的可能性更大(p=0.009)。非埋藏组有一个皮瓣脱落;并发症发生率相似。非埋藏皮瓣患者的翻修率明显更高(92% vs 70%;P=0.002)。与非埋藏皮瓣患者相比,埋藏皮瓣患者的乳房满意度(84.5  13.4 vs. 73.9  21.4; p=0.04)和性生活满意度(73.1 22.4 vs. 53.7  29.7; p=0.01)更高。结论:结论:与使用外置监测桨的乳房游离皮瓣相比,经过适当选择的患者采用埋藏式乳房游离皮瓣的并发症发生率似乎并不高。此外,埋入式 DIEP 乳房游离皮瓣的翻修手术率较低,且乳房 Q 评分较高,证明这种改良可能会带来更好的即时美学效果和患者满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
80
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal that provides an international forum for the publication of articles focusing on reconstructive microsurgery and complex reconstructive surgery. The journal was originally established in 1984 for the microsurgical community to publish and share academic papers. The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery provides the latest in original research spanning basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations. Review papers cover current topics in complex reconstruction and microsurgery. In addition, special sections discuss new technologies, innovations, materials, and significant problem cases. The journal welcomes controversial topics, editorial comments, book reviews, and letters to the Editor, in order to complete the balanced spectrum of information available in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. All articles undergo stringent peer review by international experts in the specialty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信