Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction

In patients with early-stage breast cancer who are scheduled to undergo mastectomy and desire breast reconstruction, the optimal timing of reconstruction depends on whether postmastectomy radiation therapy will be needed. Immediate reconstruction offers the best aesthetic outcomes if postmastectomy radiation therapy is not needed, but if postmastectomy radiation therapy is required, delayed reconstruction is preferable to avoid potential aesthetic and radiation-delivery problems. Unfortunately, the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy cannot be reliably determined until review of the permanent tissue sections. The authors recently implemented a two-stage approach, delayed-immediate breast reconstruction, to optimize reconstruction in patients at risk for requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy when the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy is not known at the time of mastectomy. Stage 1 consists of skin-sparing mastectomy with insertion of a completely filled textured saline tissue expander. After review of permanent sections, patients who did not require post-mastectomy radiation therapy underwent immediate reconstruction (stage 2) and patients who required postmastectomy radiation therapy completed postmastectomy radiation therapy and then underwent standard delayed reconstruction. In this study, the feasibility and outcomes of this approach were reviewed. Fourteen patients were treated with delayed-immediate reconstruction between May of 2002 and June of 2003. Twelve patients had unilateral reconstruction and two patients had bilateral reconstruction, for a total of 16 treated breasts. All patients completed stage 1. Tissue expanders were inserted subpectorally in 15 breasts and subcutaneously in one breast. The mean intraoperative expander fill volume was 475 cc (range, 250 to 750 cc). Three patients required postmastectomy radiation therapy and underwent delayed reconstruction. Eleven patients did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy. Nine patients had 11 breast reconstructions (stage 2), six with free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, one with a superior gluteal artery perforator flap, and four with a latissimus dorsi flap plus an implant. The median interval between stages was 13 days (range, 11 to 22 days). Two patients who did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy have not yet had stage 2 reconstruction, one because she wished to delay reconstruction and the other because she required additional tissue expansion before permanent implant placement. Six complications occurred. The stage 1 complications involved two cases of mastectomy skin necrosis in patients who required post-mastectomy radiation therapy; one patient required removal of the subcutaneously placed expander before postmastectomy radiation therapy and the other patient had a subpectorally placed expander that only required local wound care. The stage 2 complications were a recipient-site seroma in a patient with a latissimus dorsi flap, a recipient-site hematoma in the patient with the superior gluteal artery perforator flap, and two arterial thromboses in patients with TRAM flaps. Both TRAM flaps were salvaged. Delayed-immediate reconstruction is technically feasible and safe in patients with early-stage breast cancer who may require postmastectomy radiation therapy. With this approach, patients who do not require postmastectomy radiation therapy can achieve aesthetic outcomes essentially the same as those with immediate reconstruction, and patients who require postmastectomy radiation therapy can avoid the aesthetic and radiation-delivery problems that can occur after an immediate breast reconstruction.     

Cost-based comparison between perforator flaps and TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction

More women than ever before are undergoing mastectomies secondary to increased awareness and screening. This increase has also caused a corresponding increase in the number of breast reconstructions requested each year. The increased demand for reconstruction has fueled recent advances in new techniques. Aside from foreign-body reconstruction such as implants, the methods now being used are related to autogenous donations and reconstruction. Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps and perforator flaps are currently being used for autogenous breast reconstruction. This study will compare these two techniques on the basis of cost and length of stay. A retrospective study of 49 patients undergoing a total of 64 perforator flap breast reconstructions at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, during the 1997 calendar year was used. There were 59 deep inferior epigastric perforator and five gluteal artery perforator breast reconstructions. All patients underwent some form of breast reconstruction and differed only in respect to whether a mastectomy was performed and whether the reconstruction was unilateral or bilateral. Those patients who underwent a mastectomy with immediate perforator flap reconstruction (n = 26) were then compared with patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate TRAM flap reconstruction (n = 154) at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. The data from the Anderson Study were obtained from material published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 1996. Comparison of patients was limited to those who underwent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction because this was the design of the M. D. Anderson study. This approach allowed a cost and length of stay comparison while keeping other variables relatively similar. Patients in the perforator flap series enjoyed a marginally shorter operating time and a much shorter length of stay. On average, the operative time for all perforator flap reconstructions was approximately 2 hours shorter than for all TRAM flaps. As for length of stay, perforator flap patients were discharged, on average, 3 days after the initial reconstruction. In contrast, TRAM flap patients remained in the hospital for an average of approximately 7 days after the initial reconstruction. The overall total, average cost for the perforator flap reconstruction in this study is $9625, whereas the average cost of all TRAM flaps performed in the Anderson study is $18,070.     

The transverse myocutaneous gracilis free flap: a valuable tissue source in autologous breast reconstruction

The transverse myocutaneous gracilis free flap with a transverse orientation of the skin paddle in the proximal third of the medial thigh region allows the taking, in selected patients, of a moderate amount of tissue for autologous breast reconstruction. The donor-site morbidity is similar to that of a classic medial thigh lift. The indication for this flap in autologous breast reconstruction and the surgical technique will be discussed in this article. From August of 2002 to March of 2003, 10 patients underwent autologous breast reconstruction with 12 transverse myocutaneous gracilis free flaps. The patients' ages ranged from 26 to 48 years (median, 40 years). Of those, two BRCA-positive women received bilateral breast reconstructions after prophylactic skin-sparing mastectomy, and eight patients received immediate breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy in early-stage breast cancer. Mean follow-up of the 10 patients was 5 months (range, 1 to 9 months). We had no free-flap failure. Four patients had small areas of ischemic skin necrosis related to very thin preparation of the skin envelope after skin-sparing mastectomy without altering the final aesthetic results. Cosmetic evaluation of the reconstructed breasts and thigh donor site by two plastic surgeons showed good results in nine patients and fair results in one patient. There was no functional donor-site morbidity caused by harvesting the gracilis flap. The transverse myocutaneous gracilis flap is a valuable alternative for immediate autologous breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy in patients with small and medium-sized breasts and inadequate soft-tissue bulk at the lower abdomen and gluteal region.     

Perforator flap breast reconstruction using internal mammary perforator branches as a recipient site: an anatomical and clinical analysis

A variety of useful recipient sites exist for breast reconstruction with free flaps, and correct selection remains a significant decision for the surgeon. Among the main pedicles, the disadvantages of the internal mammary vessels are the necessity of costal cartilage resection and the impairment of future cardiac bypass. This study was designed to reduce morbidity and to seek alternative recipient vessels. In the anatomical part of the study, 32 parasternal regions from 16 fresh cadavers were used. The locations and components of internal mammary perforator branches were measured and a histomorphometric analysis was performed. In the clinical part of the study, 36 patients underwent 38 deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and two superior gluteal artery perforator flap breast reconstructions (31 immediate and four bilateral). The recipient vessels were evaluated. In the anatomical study, there were 22 perforating vessels, with 14 (63.6 percent) on the second intercostal space and 11 (50 percent) with one artery and vein. The average (+/-SD) internal and external perforator artery diameters were 598.48 +/- 176.68 microm and 848.97 +/- 276.68 microm, respectively. In the clinical study, 13 successful anastomoses (32.5 percent) were performed at the internal mammary perforator branches (second and third intercostal spaces) with 12 DIEP flaps and one superior gluteal artery perforator flap (all performed as immediate reconstructions). One case of intraoperative vein thrombosis and one case of pedicle avulsion during flap molding were observed. The anatomic and clinical studies demonstrated that the internal mammary perforator branch as a recipient site is a further refinement to free flap breast reconstruction. However, it is neither a reproducible technique nor potentially applicable in all patients. Preoperative planning between the general surgeon and the plastic surgeon is crucial to preserve the main perforator branches during mastectomy. The procedure was not demonstrable in late reconstructions. The main advantages of internal mammary perforator branches used as recipient sites are sparing of the internal mammary vessels for a possible future cardiac surgery, prevention of thoracic deformities, and reduction of the operative time by limited dissection. Despite this, limited surgical exposure, caliber incompatibility, and technical difficulties have to be considered as the main restrictions.     

The value of preoperative Doppler sonography for planning free perforator flaps

The individual perforating vessels have a high degree of anatomical variation, therefore it is desirable to conduct a careful examination of them before undertaking a perforator flap operation. Because locating the vessels beforehand makes performing the operative procedure much easier, the aim of the present study was to assess the value of using simple acoustic Doppler sonography to plan a perforator flap operation. The vessel examinations were carried out before taking 46 free microvascular flaps from either the lower abdominal wall or the buttock for reconstructive breast surgery. The perforating vessels located were marked, and their position relative to the umbilicus or the most cranial point of the rima ani recorded using a coordinate system. In 40 patients, a perforator flap operation (deep inferior epigastric perforator flap, n = 32; superior gluteal artery perforator flap, n = 8) was actually carried out; in six of these patients, a myocutaneous flap was used because of the insufficient availability of perforating vessels. Before the operation, perforating vessels were marked for each patient, with an average of 7.3 for the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and 6.5 for the superior gluteal artery perforator flap. Out of 286 vessels marked for later perforator flaps, 162 were identified during the operation. A preoperatively marked vessel was used in 37 of 40 patients. In the remaining patients, a vessel was used that had not been previously marked. The vertical and horizontal distance between the perforating vessels identified during the operation and the preoperative marks averaged 0.8 cm. The results show preoperative Doppler sonography to be useful for locating the position of individual perforating vessels, making it much easier to find them during the operation.     

Autogenous augmentation mammaplasty with microsurgical tissue transfer

Many patients dream of reducing their abdominal or gluteal fat tissue and, in the same procedure, enlarging their breasts without the need for implants and their related problems. Following this demand, a new "natural" alternative to breast augmentation with autogenous tissue is presented. Since 1993, 16 patients have undergone either unilateral or bilateral breast augmentation with free fat transfer. These 20 augmentation mammaplasties consisted of nine deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps, eight superior gluteal artery perforator flaps, and three superficial inferior epigastric artery flaps. The postoperative results were judged aesthetically by independent examiners and by the patients according to Netscher's score. The additional operations for final shaping of the breasts and the postoperative complications at the donor and recipient sites are reported. The augmented breasts improved the aesthetic proportions more than 100 percent. All flaps survived, and except for minor postoperative complications such as small areas of wound dehiscence, the breasts could be shaped aesthetically in a second-stage procedure several weeks later. Breast augmentation with autogenous tissue offers a natural alternative to alloplastic augmentation mammaplasty.     

Breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap or the muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM flap: is there a difference?

The advantages of breast reconstruction using the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and the muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap (MS-2) are well recognized. Both techniques optimize abdominal function by maintaining the vascularity, innervation, and continuity of the rectus abdominis muscle. The purpose of this study was to compare these two methods of breast reconstruction and determine whether there is a difference in outcome. The study considered 177 women who have had breast reconstruction using muscle-sparing flaps over a 4-year period. This includes 89 women who had an MS-2 free TRAM flap procedure, of which 65 were unilateral and 24 were bilateral, and 88 women who had a DIEP flap procedure, of which 66 were unilateral and 22 were bilateral. The total number of flaps was 223. Mean follow-up was 23 months (range, 3 to 49 months). For all MS-2 free TRAM flaps (n = 113), outcome included fat necrosis in eight (7.1 percent), venous congestion in three (2.7 percent), and total necrosis in two (1.8 percent). For the women who had an MS-2 free TRAM flap, an abdominal bulge occurred in three women (4.6 percent) after unilateral reconstruction and in five women (21 percent) after bilateral reconstruction. The ability to perform sit-ups was noted in 63 women (97 percent) after unilateral reconstruction and 20 women (83 percent) after bilateral reconstruction. For all DIEP flaps (n = 110), outcome included fat necrosis in seven (6.4 percent), venous congestion in five (4.5 percent), and total necrosis in three (2.7 percent) patients. For the women who had DIEP flap reconstruction, an abdominal bulge occurred in one woman (1.5 percent) after unilateral reconstruction and in one woman (4.5 percent) after bilateral reconstruction. The ability to perform sit-ups was noted in all women after unilateral reconstruction and in 21 women (95 percent) after bilateral reconstruction. These results demonstrate that there are no significant differences in fat necrosis, venous congestion, or flap necrosis after DIEP or MS-2 free TRAM flap reconstruction. The percentage of women who are able to perform sit-ups and the percentage of women who did not develop a postoperative abdominal bulge is increased after DIEP flap reconstruction; however, this difference is not statistically significant.     

A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction

This study examined 758 deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction, with respect to risk factors and associated complications. Risk factors that demonstrated significant association with any breast or abdominal complication included smoking (p = 0.0000), postreconstruction radiotherapy (p = 0.0000), and hypertension (p = 0.0370). Ninety-eight flaps (12.9 percent) developed fat necrosis. Associated risk factors were smoking (p = 0.0226) and postreconstruction radiotherapy (p = 0.0000). Interestingly, as the number of perforators increased, so did the incidence of fat necrosis. There were only 19 cases (2.5 percent) of partial flap loss and four cases (0.5 percent) of total flap loss. Patients with 45 flaps (5.9 percent) were returned to the operating room before the second-stage procedure. Patients with 29 flaps (3.8 percent) were returned to the operating room because of venous congestion. Venous congestion and any complication were observed to be statistically unrelated to the number of venous anastomoses. Overall, postoperative abdominal hernia or bulge occurred after only five reconstructions (0.7 percent). Complication rates in this large series were comparable to those in retrospective reviews of pedicle and free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps. Previous studies of the free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap described breast complication rates ranging from 8 to 13 percent and abdominal complication rates ranging from 0 to 82 percent. It was noted that, with experience in microsurgical techniques and perforator selection, the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap offers distinct advantages to patients, in terms of decreased donor-site morbidity and shorter recovery periods. Mastery of this flap provides reconstructive surgeons with more extensive options for the treatment of postmastectomy patients.     

Breast reconstruction with superficial inferior epigastric artery flaps: a prospective comparison with TRAM and DIEP flaps

Breast reconstruction using the lower abdominal free superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap has the potential to virtually eliminate abdominal donor-site morbidity because the rectus abdominis fascia and muscle are not incised or excised. However, despite its advantages, the free SIEA flap for breast reconstruction is rarely used. A prospective study was conducted of the reliability and outcomes of the use of SIEA flaps for breast reconstruction compared with transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. Breast reconstruction with an SIEA flap was attempted in 47 consecutive free autologous tissue breast reconstructions between August of 2001 and November of 2002. The average patient age was 49 years, and the average body mass index was 27 kg/m. The SIEA flap was used in 14 (30 percent) of these breast reconstructions in 12 patients. An SIEA flap was not used in the remaining 33 cases because the SIEA was absent or was deemed too small. The mean superficial inferior epigastric vessel pedicle length was approximately 7 cm. The internal mammary vessels were used as recipients in all SIEA flap cases so that the flap could be positioned sufficiently medially on the chest wall. The average hospital stay was significantly shorter for patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstruction with SIEA flaps than it was for those who underwent reconstruction with TRAM or DIEP flaps. Of the 47 free flaps, one SIEA flap was lost because of arterial thrombosis. Medium-size and large breasts were reconstructed with hemi-lower abdominal SIEA flaps, with aesthetic results similar to those obtained with TRAM and DIEP flaps. The free SIEA flap is an attractive option for autologous tissue breast reconstruction. Harvest of this flap does not injure the anterior rectus fascia or underlying rectus abdominis muscle. This can potentially eliminate abdominal donor-site complications such as bulge and hernia formation, and decrease weakness, discomfort, and hospital stay compared with TRAM and DIEP flaps. The disadvantages of an SIEA flap are a smaller pedicle diameter and shorter pedicle length than TRAM and DIEP flaps and the absence or inadequacy of an arterial pedicle in most patients. Nevertheless, in selected patients, the SIEA flap offers advantages over the TRAM and DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction.     

Breast cancer after augmentation mammaplasty: treatment by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction

Breast conservation has been associated with poor cosmetic outcome when used to treat breast cancer in patients who have undergone prior augmentation mammaplasty. Radiation therapy of the augmented breast can increase breast fibrosis and capsular contraction. Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction are examined as an alternative treatment.Six patients with prior breast augmentation were treated for breast cancer by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. One patient underwent a contralateral prophylactic skin-sparing mastectomy. Silicone gel implants had been placed in the submuscular location in five patients and in the subglandular position in one patient a mean of 10.2 years (range, 6 to 20 years) before breast cancer diagnosis. The mean patient age was 41.3 years (range, 33 to 56 years). Four independent judges reviewed postoperative photographs to grade the aesthetic results in comparison with the opposite native or reconstructed breast.The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging was stage 0 in one patient, stage I for four patients, and stage II for one patient. Five of the six patients presented with a palpable breast mass. Latissimus dorsi flap reconstruction was performed in four patients (bilaterally in one) and a transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) flap was used in two patients. Three patients were treated by skin-sparing mastectomy with preservation of the breast implant (two patients with latissimus flaps, and one patient with a TRAM flap). The tumor location necessitated the removal of implants in two patients (one patient with a latissimus flap and one with a TRAM. A saline implant was placed under the latissimus flap after gel implant removal. The patient who underwent bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies desired explantation and placement of saline implants. No remedial surgery was performed on the opposite breast to achieve symmetry. Complications occurred in two patients at the latissimus dorsi donor site (seroma in one patient, and seroma and infection in one). Five patients underwent complete nipple reconstructions. The mean duration of follow-up was 33.6 months (range, 15.5 to 70.3 months), and there were no recurrences of breast cancer. The aesthetic results were judged to be good to excellent in all cases.Skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction can be used in patients with prior breast augmentation, with good to excellent cosmetic results. Depending on the tumor and implant location, the implant may be preserved without compromising local control.     

Comparison of cost for DIEP and free TRAM flap breast reconstructions

A recent article by Kaplan and Allen suggested that deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction was less expensive than reconstruction performed with free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps. To test that hypothesis, a series of patients who had undergone unilateral breast-mound reconstruction by the first author using DIEP or free TRAM flaps between November 1, 1996, and March 30, 2000, were reviewed. Bilateral reconstructions and reconstructions performed by other surgeons in the department were excluded to eliminate all variables except the choice of flap. All hours in the operating room and days in the hospital until discharge were included. Early readmissions for the treatment of complications were included, as were the costs of the mastectomy in the case of immediate reconstructions, but late revisions and nipple reconstructions were not. The totals were then converted into resource costs in 1999 dollars, and the DIEP and free TRAM flap groups compared. There were 21 DIEP flaps and 24 free TRAM flaps in the series. In this series, there was no significant difference between the cost of DIEP and free TRAM flap breast reconstruction.     

Importance of lateral row perforator vessels in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap harvesting

Free flaps based on perforator vessels, and in particular the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, are currently being applied in abdominal reconstruction. However, one of the main disadvantages is the operative complexity. Through anatomical study and clinical experience with the DIEP flap in breast reconstruction, the intramuscular path of the perforator vessels was comparatively studied, to establish the main anatomical parameters that favor procedure planning. Thirty DIEP flaps from 15 fresh cadavers were used. The number, location, and intramuscular course of the perforator vessels were determined. In addition, an initial clinical study was performed in 31 patients using 35 DIEP flaps in breast reconstruction. The number, location, and the intramuscular course of the perforators were assessed. In the cadaver study, 191 perforator vessels were detected (6.4 vessels per flap). Thirty-four percent were located in the lateral row, and the rectilinear course was observed in 79.2 percent of these vessels. In the medial row, only 18.2 percent of the perforator vessels presented this configuration (p = 0.001). Thirty-one patients underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction, with 26 immediate and four bilateral reconstructions. In 22 of 35 flaps (62.9 percent), two perforators were used. In 25 flaps (71.4 percent), the lateral row perforators with a rectilinear course were observed. Mean operative time was 7 hours and 37 minutes. Two total flap losses and two partial necroses were observed. The majority of the lateral row perforators presented a rectilinear intramuscular course, which was shorter than that of the medial row perforators. This anatomical characteristic favors dissection with reduced operative time and vascular lesion morbidity, resulting in an important anatomical parameter for DIEP flap harvesting.     

Postoperative morphine requirements of free TRAM and DIEP flaps

In a review of the charts of 158 patients who had undergone breast reconstruction with free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) or deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and who were treated for postoperative pain with morphine administered by a patient-controlled analgesia pump, the total dose of morphine administered during hospitalization for the flap transfer was measured. Patients whose treatment was supplemented by other intravenous narcotics were excluded from the study. The mean amount of morphine per kilogram required by patients who had reconstruction with DIEP flaps (0.74 mg/kg, n = 26) was found to be significantly less than the amount required by patients who had reconstruction with TRAM flaps (1.65 mg/kg; n = 132; p < 0.001). DIEP flap patients also remained in the hospital less time (mean, 4.73 days) than did free TRAM flap patients (mean, 5.21 days; p = 0.026), but the difference was less than one full hospital day. It was concluded that the use of the DIEP flap does reduce the patient requirement for postoperative pain medication and therefore presumably reduces postoperative pain. It may also slightly shorten hospital stay.     

Fat necrosis in free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps

A series of 310 breasts reconstructed by a single surgeon using free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps was reviewed to see if there were any differences in the incidence of fat necrosis and/or partial flap loss between the two techniques. During the study period, 279 breasts were reconstructed with free TRAM flaps and 31 breasts were reconstructed with DIEP flaps. In the breasts reconstructed with free TRAM flaps, the incidence of partial flap loss was 2.2 percent and the incidence of fat necrosis was 12.9 percent. The DIEP flaps were divided into two groups. For the first eight flaps, patients were selected using the same criteria normally used to choose patients for free TRAM flaps. In this unselected early group, the incidence of partial flap loss was 37.5 percent and the incidence of fat necrosis was 62.5 percent. Because of the high incidence of partial flap loss and fat necrosis in the first eight flaps, subsequent selection was modified to limit the use of DIEP flaps to patients who had at least one sufficiently large perforator in each flap (a palpable pulse and a vein at least 1 mm in diameter) and who did not require more than 70 percent of the flap to create a breast of adequate size. In this later (selected) group, fat necrosis (17.4 percent) and partial flap loss (8.7 percent) were reduced to a level only moderately higher than that found in the free TRAM flap group. From these data, it can be concluded that the incidence of partial flap loss and fat necrosis is higher in DIEP flaps than in free TRAM flaps, probably because the blood flow to the former flap is less robust. This difficulty can be circumvented to some extent, however, by careful patient selection. Factors that should be considered include tobacco use, size of the perforators (especially the vein), and (in unilateral reconstructions) the amount of flap tissue across the midline needed to create an adequately sized breast. If these factors are properly considered when planning the operation, fat necrosis and partial flap loss can be reduced to an acceptable level. For selected patients, the DIEP flap is an excellent technique that can obtain a successful, autologous tissue breast reconstruction with minimal donor-site morbidity. For patients who are not good candidates for reconstruction with this flap, the free TRAM flap remains a good alternative.     

Reconstructive management of contralateral breast cancer in patients who previously underwent unilateral breast reconstruction

When a patient who has had unilateral breast reconstruction presents with a new cancer on the opposite side, the reconstructive management of the second breast can be unclear. This study was performed to determine whether reconstruction of the second breast is oncologically reasonable and to evaluate the reconstructive options available to these patients.Patients who had mastectomy with unilateral breast reconstruction between 1988 and 1994 and who had a minimal follow-up of 5 years from the initial breast cancer were reviewed. Of 469 patients reviewed, 18 patients (4 percent) were identified who developed contralateral breast cancer. Mean age at the initial breast cancer presentation was 43 years (range, 26 to 57 years), and mean age at presentation with contralateral breast cancer was 48 years (range, 36 to 67). The mean interval between the initial and contralateral breast cancer presentations was 5 years (range, 1 to 10 years). Mean follow-up from the time of contralateral breast cancer was 5 years (range, 1 to 9 years). In most cases, contralateral breast cancer presented at an early stage (13 of 18 patients; 72 percent), and a shift to an earlier stage at presentation of the contralateral cancer was evident compared with the initial breast cancer. Of the 18 patients who developed contralateral breast cancer, 16 (89 percent) had no evidence of disease, one was alive with disease, and one died. Reconstructive management after the initial mastectomy included 16 transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps (seven free and nine pedicled), one latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap with implant, and one superior gluteal free flap. Surgical management of the second breast after contralateral breast cancer included breast conservation in two patients, mastectomy without reconstruction in four, and mastectomy with reconstruction in 12. Reconstruction of the second breast included one free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap, three extended latissimus dorsi flaps, two latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flaps with implants, three implants alone, two Rubens flaps, and one superior gluteal free flap. No major complications were noted after the reconstruction of the second breast. The best symmetry was obtained when similar methods and tissues were used on both sides.The incidence of contralateral breast cancer after mastectomy and unilateral breast reconstruction is low. In most cases, contralateral breast cancer presents at an earlier stage compared with the initial breast cancer, and the prognosis is good. In patients who develop a contralateral breast cancer after mastectomy and unilateral breast reconstruction, the reconstruction of the second breast after mastectomy is oncologically reasonable and should be offered to provide optimal breast symmetry and a better quality of life. The best result is obtained when similar methods and tissues are used on both sides.     

Contour abnormalities of the abdomen after breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps: the role of muscle preservation.

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether contour abnormalities of the abdomen after breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps are related to the harvest of the rectus abdominis muscle. Abdominal contour was analyzed in 155 women who had breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps; 108 women had free transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) flaps, 37 had pedicled TRAM flaps, and 10 had deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. The reconstruction was unilateral in 110 women and bilateral in 45 women. Three methods of muscle-sparing were used; they are classified as preservation of the lateral muscle, preservation of the medial and lateral muscle, or preservation of the entire muscle. One of these three methods of muscle-sparing was used in 91 women (59 percent) and no muscle-sparing was used in 64 women (41 percent). Postoperative contour abnormalities occurred in 15 woman and included epigastric fullness in five, upper bulge in three, and lower bulge in 10. One woman experienced two abnormalities, one woman experienced three, and no woman developed a hernia. Of these abnormalities, 11 occurred after the free TRAM flap, seven after the pedicled TRAM flap, and none after the DIEP flap. Bilateral reconstruction resulted in 11 abnormalities in nine women, and unilateral reconstruction resulted in seven abnormalities in six women. chi2 analysis of the free and pedicled TRAM flaps demonstrates that muscle-sparing explains the observed differences in upper bulge and upper fullness (p = 0.02), with a trend toward significance for lower bulge (p = 0.06). chi2 analysis of the free TRAM and DIEP flaps does not explain the observed difference in abnormal abdominal contour. Analysis of muscle-sparing and non-muscle-sparing methods demonstrates that the observed difference between the techniques is only explained for a lower bulge after the bilateral free TRAM flap (p = 0.04).     

The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction in overweight and obese patients

The authors retrospectively reviewed the computerized records of 71 women undergoing 80 deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstructions after mastectomy over a 1-year period. There were 33 normal, 26 overweight, and 12 obese patients. No statistically significant difference in flap complications was found between groups. Overall fat necrosis rates were 11.4 percent for the normal-weight patients, 6.7 percent for the overweight patients, and 6.7 percent for the obese patients. Postoperative hospital time was similar for all groups. The occurrence of abdominal wall fascial laxity was uncommon and similar for all groups. Large (>900 g) reconstructions were completed without prohibitive complications in the reconstruction flap. The DIEP flap represents a significant advance in autologous breast tissue reconstruction. Although concerns regarding fat necrosis rates in DIEP flaps have been voiced, the authors did not see an increasing rate of fat necrosis in their overweight and obese patients, and their overall rate of fat necrosis is comparable to rates reported for free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps. Also, increasing body mass index did not seem to affect the rate of delayed complications of the abdominal wall, such as abdominal wall hernia or bulging. Although it was not statistically significant, the authors did observe a trend toward increased wound-healing complications with increasing body mass index. Their data also support the claim that the complete sparing of the rectus abdominis muscles afforded by the DIEP flap avoids abdominal wall fascial bulging or defects often seen in obese TRAM reconstruction patients. Because flap and wound complication rates are similar or superior to those of other autologous tissue reconstruction techniques and the occurrence of abdominal wall defects is all but eliminated, the DIEP flap likely represents the preferred autologous breast reconstruction technique for overweight and obese patients.     

Ex vivo intraoperative angiography for rectus abdominis musculocutaneous free flaps

In this study, the vascular architecture of rectus abdominis free flaps nourished by deep inferior epigastric vessels was investigated using an ex vivo intraoperative angiogram. Oblique rectus abdominis free flaps were elevated and isolated from the donor site. In 11 patients, the vascular architecture of these flaps was analyzed before the flap was thinned. Radiographic study identified an average of 2.1 large deep inferior epigastric arterial perforators in each flap. In nine of the 11 flaps, the axial artery was visible. In four flaps, the axial artery originated from the perforator of the lateral branch of the deep inferior epigastric artery; in five others, it originated from the medial branch. In each flap, the angle of the axial perforator from its anterior rectus sheath in the vertical plane was measured; its mean was 50.6 degrees. All flaps survived, although three showed partial necrosis in the distal portions. In two of these three flaps, the axial artery was not visible in the angiograms, and the third revealed a one-sided distribution of axial flap arteries. Using ex vivo intraoperative angiography, the architecture of the individual flap, its axial perforator, and its connecting axial flap vessel could be investigated. This information can help the surgeon safely thin and separate the flap.     

Reconstruction of large sacral defects following total sacrectomy

Total sacrectomies for cancer ablation often result in extensive defects that are challenging to reconstruct. In an effort to elucidate the criteria to select the most effective reconstructive options, we reviewed our experience with the management of large sacral wound defects. All patients who had a sacral defect reconstruction after a total sacrectomy at our institution between January of 1993 and August of 1998 were reviewed. The size of the defect, the type of reconstruction, postoperative complications, and functional outcome in each patient were assessed. A total of 27 flaps were performed in 25 patients for sacral defect reconstruction after a total sacrectomy. Diagnoses consisted of chordoma (n = 13), giant cell carcinoma (n = 2), sarcoma (n = 5), rectal adenocarcinoma (n = 4), and radiation induced necrosis (n = 1). The size of sacral defects ranged from 18 to 450 cm2 (mean, 189.8 cm2). Ten patients, including five who had preoperative radiation therapy, underwent transpelvic vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap reconstruction for sacral defects with a mean size of 203.3 cm2. Of these, five patients (50 percent) had complications (four minor wound dehiscences and one seroma). Eight patients, including one who had preoperative radiation therapy, underwent bilateral gluteal advancement flap reconstruction for sacral defects with a mean size of 198.0 cm2. They had no complications. Two patients, both of whom had preoperative radiation therapy, underwent gluteal rotation flap reconstruction for sacral defects of 120 cm2 and 144 cm2. Both patients had complications (one partial flap loss and one nonhealing wound requiring a free flap). Three patients, including one who had preoperative radiation therapy, underwent reconstruction with combined gluteal and posterior thigh flaps for sacral defects with a mean size of 246 cm2; two of these patients had partial necrosis of the posterior thigh flaps. Three patients, all of whom had preoperative radiation therapy, underwent free flap reconstruction for sacral defects with a mean size of 144.3 cm2. They had no complications. Our experience suggests that there are three reliable options for the reconstruction of large sacral wound defects: bilateral gluteal advancement flaps, transpelvic rectus myocutaneous flaps, and free flaps. In patients with no preoperative radiation therapy and intact gluteal vessels, the use of bilateral gluteal advancement flaps should be considered. In patients with a history of radiation to the sacral area and in patients whose gluteal vessels have been damaged, the use of the transpelvic VRAM flap should be considered. If the transpelvic VRAM flap cannot be used because of previous abdominal surgery, a free flap should be considered as a last option.