Jacquelyn M Roth, Maxwell Godek, Ethan Fung, Reanna Shah, Bernice Yu, Areeg A E Hawa, Keisha E Montalmant, Alex Kagen, Alice Yao, Peter W Henderson
{"title":"Population Assessment of Anatomic Eligibility for Robotic-Assisted DIEP Flap.","authors":"Jacquelyn M Roth, Maxwell Godek, Ethan Fung, Reanna Shah, Bernice Yu, Areeg A E Hawa, Keisha E Montalmant, Alex Kagen, Alice Yao, Peter W Henderson","doi":"10.1055/a-2702-4021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Compared with traditional deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction procedures, robotic-assisted DIEP (R-DIEP) minimizes abdominal wall morbidity by reducing fascial incision length. Optimal R-DIEP candidates have large perforators with short intramuscular courses, but no large-scale studies have quantified their prevalence. This study aims to identify the proportion of patients who are anatomically eligible for R-DIEP.A retrospective review of patients who underwent magnetic resonance angiography perforator mapping prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction between 2019 and 2023 was conducted. Patient demographics were collected. \"Dominant perforator\" was defined as the largest perforator at or below the level of the umbilicus. The intramuscular course of each perforator was calculated as the hypotenuse of a theoretical prism connecting its entry and exit points with respect to the rectus abdominis muscle. Perforator diameter was measured at the anterior rectus sheath. \"Conservative\" (intramuscular course ≤ 2.5 cm) and \"liberal\" (intramuscular course ≤ 5 cm) eligibility criteria were applied. Perforator diameter > 2 mm was used as a secondary criterion.A total of 574 dominant perforators were identified in 287 patients. The average intramuscular length of each perforator was 3.8 ± 1.9 cm (range: 0-11.0 cm). Twenty-nine percent of dominant perforators (<i>n</i> = 165) had an intramuscular course length ≤ 2.5 cm, 77% (<i>n</i> = 441) had an intramuscular course length ≤ 5 cm, and 2.3% (<i>n</i> = 13) were paramuscular (no intramuscular course). Forty-six percent of patients (<i>n</i> = 132) had at least one dominant perforator (i.e., left- or right-sided) with an intramuscular course ≤ 2.5 cm, and 93% of patients (<i>n</i> = 268) had at least one dominant perforator with an intramuscular course ≤ 5 cm. Thirty-one percent of dominant perforators (<i>n</i> = 185) had a diameter > 2 mm and an intramuscular course ≤ 2.5 cm, and 49% of dominant perforators (<i>n</i> = 281) had a diameter > 2 mm and an intramuscular course ≤ 5 cm.A substantial portion of the population is anatomically eligible for R-DIEP breast reconstruction, especially when liberal criteria are applied.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","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-2702-4021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Compared with traditional deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction procedures, robotic-assisted DIEP (R-DIEP) minimizes abdominal wall morbidity by reducing fascial incision length. Optimal R-DIEP candidates have large perforators with short intramuscular courses, but no large-scale studies have quantified their prevalence. This study aims to identify the proportion of patients who are anatomically eligible for R-DIEP.A retrospective review of patients who underwent magnetic resonance angiography perforator mapping prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction between 2019 and 2023 was conducted. Patient demographics were collected. "Dominant perforator" was defined as the largest perforator at or below the level of the umbilicus. The intramuscular course of each perforator was calculated as the hypotenuse of a theoretical prism connecting its entry and exit points with respect to the rectus abdominis muscle. Perforator diameter was measured at the anterior rectus sheath. "Conservative" (intramuscular course ≤ 2.5 cm) and "liberal" (intramuscular course ≤ 5 cm) eligibility criteria were applied. Perforator diameter > 2 mm was used as a secondary criterion.A total of 574 dominant perforators were identified in 287 patients. The average intramuscular length of each perforator was 3.8 ± 1.9 cm (range: 0-11.0 cm). Twenty-nine percent of dominant perforators (n = 165) had an intramuscular course length ≤ 2.5 cm, 77% (n = 441) had an intramuscular course length ≤ 5 cm, and 2.3% (n = 13) were paramuscular (no intramuscular course). Forty-six percent of patients (n = 132) had at least one dominant perforator (i.e., left- or right-sided) with an intramuscular course ≤ 2.5 cm, and 93% of patients (n = 268) had at least one dominant perforator with an intramuscular course ≤ 5 cm. Thirty-one percent of dominant perforators (n = 185) had a diameter > 2 mm and an intramuscular course ≤ 2.5 cm, and 49% of dominant perforators (n = 281) had a diameter > 2 mm and an intramuscular course ≤ 5 cm.A substantial portion of the population is anatomically eligible for R-DIEP breast reconstruction, especially when liberal criteria are applied.
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.