剖宫产疤痕和其他腹部疤痕的一致性及SIEV在游离DIEP皮瓣中静脉增强乳房重建的应用

IF 1.5 3区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Microsurgery Pub Date : 2025-02-15 DOI:10.1002/micr.70039
Ines E. Tinhofer, Tzong-Yun Tsai, David Chon-Fok Cheong, Tzu-En Lin, Wen-Ling Kuo, Jung-Ju Huang
{"title":"剖宫产疤痕和其他腹部疤痕的一致性及SIEV在游离DIEP皮瓣中静脉增强乳房重建的应用","authors":"Ines E. Tinhofer,&nbsp;Tzong-Yun Tsai,&nbsp;David Chon-Fok Cheong,&nbsp;Tzu-En Lin,&nbsp;Wen-Ling Kuo,&nbsp;Jung-Ju Huang","doi":"10.1002/micr.70039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>With a global trend towards cesarean deliveries and abdominal surgeries for gastrointestinal disease treatment, more and more candidates for breast reconstruction using free deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flap presented with abdominal scars. The purpose of the study was to investigate the risk of scar-related perfusion complications in DIEP flaps in patients with different abdominal scars.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective study was conducted in patients receiving DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction between October 2008 and April 2022. Demographics and the existing abdominal scars were collected. Acute and late complications were reviewed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>273 breasts in 267 patients were included. Abdominal scars presented in 96 (36.0%) patients, including transverse cesarean sectioning in 69, midline scars in eight, laparoscopic scars in 23, appendectomy scars in five, abdominal total hysterectomy in one, and umbilicus scar in one patient. They did not increase the conversion rate from DIEP to ms-TRAM flap. The flap sizes were significantly bigger in the scar (SG) than in the control group (CG) (flap length SG: 29.8 ± 3.0 cm, CG: 28.9 ± 3.0 cm, <i>p</i> = 0.021 and flap width SG: 11.9 ± 1.1 cm, CG: 11.6 ± 0.9 cm, <i>p</i> = 0.002, respectively). However, the flap used percentage was similar (SG: 72.9% ± 13.1% and CG: 75.7% ± 12.2%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.086). The SIEV could be identified bilaterally significantly more often in the CG than in the SG (SG: 80.2% and CG: 91.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.006). The availability of SIEV was significantly less when a transverse scar was present. The need for venous superdrainage with SIEV was not statistically different in both groups (SG: 8.3% and CG: 12.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.320). The overall re-exploration rate was 6.2%. Acute re-explorations (SG: 5.1% vs. CG: 6.9%) or late revisions for aesthetics (SG: 17.7% vs. CG: 21.8%) were equally distributed. Flap-related complications like partial necrosis or fat necrosis showed similar rates, regardless of SIEV use for superdrainage (<i>p</i> = 0.287). Lastly, acute donor site complications, especially poor wound healing, occurred similarly in both groups (<i>p</i> = 0.234).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Pre-existing abdominal scars do not compromise DIEP flap transfer, nor increase the incidence of late fat necrosis.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18600,"journal":{"name":"Microsurgery","volume":"45 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coherences of Cesarean Sectioning Scars and Other Abdominal Scars and Venous Augmentation Using SIEV in Free DIEP Flaps for Breast Reconstruction\",\"authors\":\"Ines E. Tinhofer,&nbsp;Tzong-Yun Tsai,&nbsp;David Chon-Fok Cheong,&nbsp;Tzu-En Lin,&nbsp;Wen-Ling Kuo,&nbsp;Jung-Ju Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/micr.70039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>With a global trend towards cesarean deliveries and abdominal surgeries for gastrointestinal disease treatment, more and more candidates for breast reconstruction using free deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flap presented with abdominal scars. The purpose of the study was to investigate the risk of scar-related perfusion complications in DIEP flaps in patients with different abdominal scars.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A retrospective study was conducted in patients receiving DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction between October 2008 and April 2022. Demographics and the existing abdominal scars were collected. Acute and late complications were reviewed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>273 breasts in 267 patients were included. Abdominal scars presented in 96 (36.0%) patients, including transverse cesarean sectioning in 69, midline scars in eight, laparoscopic scars in 23, appendectomy scars in five, abdominal total hysterectomy in one, and umbilicus scar in one patient. They did not increase the conversion rate from DIEP to ms-TRAM flap. The flap sizes were significantly bigger in the scar (SG) than in the control group (CG) (flap length SG: 29.8 ± 3.0 cm, CG: 28.9 ± 3.0 cm, <i>p</i> = 0.021 and flap width SG: 11.9 ± 1.1 cm, CG: 11.6 ± 0.9 cm, <i>p</i> = 0.002, respectively). However, the flap used percentage was similar (SG: 72.9% ± 13.1% and CG: 75.7% ± 12.2%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.086). The SIEV could be identified bilaterally significantly more often in the CG than in the SG (SG: 80.2% and CG: 91.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.006). The availability of SIEV was significantly less when a transverse scar was present. The need for venous superdrainage with SIEV was not statistically different in both groups (SG: 8.3% and CG: 12.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.320). The overall re-exploration rate was 6.2%. Acute re-explorations (SG: 5.1% vs. CG: 6.9%) or late revisions for aesthetics (SG: 17.7% vs. CG: 21.8%) were equally distributed. Flap-related complications like partial necrosis or fat necrosis showed similar rates, regardless of SIEV use for superdrainage (<i>p</i> = 0.287). Lastly, acute donor site complications, especially poor wound healing, occurred similarly in both groups (<i>p</i> = 0.234).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Pre-existing abdominal scars do not compromise DIEP flap transfer, nor increase the incidence of late fat necrosis.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microsurgery\",\"volume\":\"45 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microsurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/micr.70039\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/micr.70039","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

背景随着剖宫产和腹部手术治疗胃肠道疾病的全球趋势,越来越多的患者使用游离腹壁下深动脉(DIEP)皮瓣进行乳房重建,并伴有腹部疤痕。本研究的目的是探讨不同腹部疤痕患者使用DIEP皮瓣时疤痕相关灌注并发症的风险。方法回顾性分析2008年10月至2022年4月间接受DIEP皮瓣乳房再造术的患者。收集统计数据和现有腹部疤痕。回顾了急性和晚期并发症。结果267例患者共纳入273个乳房。96例(36.0%)患者出现腹部瘢痕,其中横切剖宫产69例,中线瘢痕8例,腹腔镜瘢痕23例,阑尾切除术瘢痕5例,腹部全子宫切除术1例,脐瘢痕1例。他们没有增加从DIEP到ms-TRAM皮瓣的转换率。瘢痕组皮瓣大小(皮瓣长度:29.8±3.0 cm, CG: 28.9±3.0 cm, p = 0.021)明显大于对照组(皮瓣宽度:11.9±1.1 cm, CG: 11.6±0.9 cm, p = 0.002)。两组皮瓣的使用比例相似(SG: 72.9%±13.1%,CG: 75.7%±12.2%,p = 0.086)。SIEV在CG中比在SG中更容易被双侧识别(SG: 80.2%和CG: 91.8%, p = 0.006)。当存在横向疤痕时,SIEV的可用性显着降低。两组SIEV患者对静脉超引流的需求无统计学差异(SG: 8.3%, CG: 12.3%, p = 0.320)。总体再勘探率为6.2%。急性再探索(SG: 5.1% vs. CG: 6.9%)或后期美学修订(SG: 17.7% vs. CG: 21.8%)分布均匀。不论SIEV是否用于超引流,皮瓣相关并发症如部分坏死或脂肪坏死的发生率相似(p = 0.287)。最后,两组的急性供区并发症,特别是伤口愈合不良的发生率相似(p = 0.234)。结论腹部原有瘢痕不影响DIEP皮瓣转移,也不增加晚期脂肪坏死的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coherences of Cesarean Sectioning Scars and Other Abdominal Scars and Venous Augmentation Using SIEV in Free DIEP Flaps for Breast Reconstruction

Background

With a global trend towards cesarean deliveries and abdominal surgeries for gastrointestinal disease treatment, more and more candidates for breast reconstruction using free deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flap presented with abdominal scars. The purpose of the study was to investigate the risk of scar-related perfusion complications in DIEP flaps in patients with different abdominal scars.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted in patients receiving DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction between October 2008 and April 2022. Demographics and the existing abdominal scars were collected. Acute and late complications were reviewed.

Results

273 breasts in 267 patients were included. Abdominal scars presented in 96 (36.0%) patients, including transverse cesarean sectioning in 69, midline scars in eight, laparoscopic scars in 23, appendectomy scars in five, abdominal total hysterectomy in one, and umbilicus scar in one patient. They did not increase the conversion rate from DIEP to ms-TRAM flap. The flap sizes were significantly bigger in the scar (SG) than in the control group (CG) (flap length SG: 29.8 ± 3.0 cm, CG: 28.9 ± 3.0 cm, p = 0.021 and flap width SG: 11.9 ± 1.1 cm, CG: 11.6 ± 0.9 cm, p = 0.002, respectively). However, the flap used percentage was similar (SG: 72.9% ± 13.1% and CG: 75.7% ± 12.2%, respectively, p = 0.086). The SIEV could be identified bilaterally significantly more often in the CG than in the SG (SG: 80.2% and CG: 91.8%, p = 0.006). The availability of SIEV was significantly less when a transverse scar was present. The need for venous superdrainage with SIEV was not statistically different in both groups (SG: 8.3% and CG: 12.3%, p = 0.320). The overall re-exploration rate was 6.2%. Acute re-explorations (SG: 5.1% vs. CG: 6.9%) or late revisions for aesthetics (SG: 17.7% vs. CG: 21.8%) were equally distributed. Flap-related complications like partial necrosis or fat necrosis showed similar rates, regardless of SIEV use for superdrainage (p = 0.287). Lastly, acute donor site complications, especially poor wound healing, occurred similarly in both groups (p = 0.234).

Conclusions

Pre-existing abdominal scars do not compromise DIEP flap transfer, nor increase the incidence of late fat necrosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Microsurgery
Microsurgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
19.00%
发文量
128
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Microsurgery is an international and interdisciplinary publication of original contributions concerning surgery under microscopic magnification. Microsurgery publishes clinical studies, research papers, invited articles, relevant reviews, and other scholarly works from all related fields including orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, pediatric surgery, plastic surgery, urology, and vascular surgery.
×
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