Kristen L Stephens, Robert G DeVito, Chris A Campbell, John T Stranix
{"title":"Safety of Combined Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flaps and Gynecologic Procedures.","authors":"Kristen L Stephens, Robert G DeVito, Chris A Campbell, John T Stranix","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multidisciplinary breast cancer treatment is essential. For some patients, risk-reducing gynecologic procedures are a necessary addition. The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap for autologous breast reconstruction shares a common abdominal surgical site with open gynecological procedures, but the impact of concurrent surgery remains to be seen.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction with and without gynecologic procedures at our institution from 2017 to 2022 was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients undergoing combined DIEP flaps and gynecologic procedures were younger (44.6 vs 51.9, P = 0.0066) and more likely to undergo bilateral (88.2% vs 44.3%, P = 0.0004) and prophylactic (35.3% vs 9.7%, P = 0.0013) mastectomies. Concurrent surgery was associated with longer operating time (500 vs 401 minutes, P = 0.0039), greater estimated blood loss (299.1 vs 150.8 cc, P < 0.000001), but unchanged length of stay (2.59 vs 2.81 days, P = 0.51) and opioid usage (115.2 vs 122.2 morphine milligram equivalent, P = 0.80). There were increased rates of hernia and bulge in the combined procedure cohort (17.6% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.0464). Rates of flap loss, infection, and wounds were similar between the 2 cohorts. Total cost increased ($33,700 vs $28,416, P = 0.0231) but cost margin was unchanged.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Combining DIEP flap and gynecologic procedures is safe and well tolerated without differences in flap loss, length of stay, opioid use, or cost margins. However, operative time and postoperative hernia/bulge rates are higher. Plastic surgeons must be vigilant with patient selection and with abdominal wall preservation when considering combining abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction and gynecologic procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":"94 6S Suppl 4","pages":"S534-S538"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004388","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Multidisciplinary breast cancer treatment is essential. For some patients, risk-reducing gynecologic procedures are a necessary addition. The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap for autologous breast reconstruction shares a common abdominal surgical site with open gynecological procedures, but the impact of concurrent surgery remains to be seen.
Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction with and without gynecologic procedures at our institution from 2017 to 2022 was performed.
Results: Patients undergoing combined DIEP flaps and gynecologic procedures were younger (44.6 vs 51.9, P = 0.0066) and more likely to undergo bilateral (88.2% vs 44.3%, P = 0.0004) and prophylactic (35.3% vs 9.7%, P = 0.0013) mastectomies. Concurrent surgery was associated with longer operating time (500 vs 401 minutes, P = 0.0039), greater estimated blood loss (299.1 vs 150.8 cc, P < 0.000001), but unchanged length of stay (2.59 vs 2.81 days, P = 0.51) and opioid usage (115.2 vs 122.2 morphine milligram equivalent, P = 0.80). There were increased rates of hernia and bulge in the combined procedure cohort (17.6% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.0464). Rates of flap loss, infection, and wounds were similar between the 2 cohorts. Total cost increased ($33,700 vs $28,416, P = 0.0231) but cost margin was unchanged.
Conclusions: Combining DIEP flap and gynecologic procedures is safe and well tolerated without differences in flap loss, length of stay, opioid use, or cost margins. However, operative time and postoperative hernia/bulge rates are higher. Plastic surgeons must be vigilant with patient selection and with abdominal wall preservation when considering combining abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction and gynecologic procedures.
背景:多学科乳腺癌治疗是必要的。对一些患者来说,降低风险的妇科手术是必要的补充。腹壁下动脉穿支(DIEP)皮瓣用于自体乳房重建与开放式妇科手术有共同的腹部手术部位,但同时手术的影响仍有待观察。方法:回顾性分析我院2017年至2022年所有行DIEP皮瓣乳房重建术的患者,包括有和没有妇科手术。结果:接受DIEP皮瓣联合妇科手术的患者更年轻(44.6 vs 51.9, P = 0.0066),更有可能接受双侧(88.2% vs 44.3%, P = 0.0004)和预防性(35.3% vs 9.7%, P = 0.0013)乳房切除术。同时手术与较长的手术时间(500 vs 401分钟,P = 0.0039)、较大的估计失血量(299.1 vs 150.8 cc, P < 0.000001)相关,但住院时间(2.59 vs 2.81天,P = 0.51)和阿片类药物使用(115.2 vs 122.2吗啡毫克当量,P = 0.80)不变。在联合手术组中,疝气和疝气发生率增加(17.6% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.0464)。皮瓣丢失、感染和伤口的发生率在两个队列之间相似。总成本增加(33,700美元vs 28,416美元,P = 0.0231),但成本利润率不变。结论:DIEP皮瓣联合妇科手术是安全且耐受性良好的,在皮瓣丢失、住院时间、阿片类药物使用或成本方面没有差异。然而,手术时间和术后疝/隆起率较高。整形外科医生在考虑将腹腔自体乳房重建与妇科手术相结合时,必须对患者的选择和腹壁的保护保持警惕。
期刊介绍:
The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.