Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(08): 627-632
DOI: 10.1055/a-2040-1368
Original Article

Comparative Study of DIEP and PAP Flaps in Breast Reconstruction: Reconstructive Outcomes and Fat Necrosis

Hyung Bae Kim
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Seong John Han
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Eon Key Kim
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Jin Sup Eom
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Hyun Ho Han 
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background This study compared the reconstructive outcomes and fat necrosis of the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap with those of the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap.

Methods Data on all DIEP and PAP flap breast reconstructions performed between 2018 and 2021 at Asan Medical Center were compared. The overall reconstructive outcomes and presence of fat necrosis were analyzed through ultrasound evaluation performed by a board-certified radiologist.

Results The PAP (n = 43) and DIEP flaps (n = 99) were used to reconstruct 31 and 99 breasts, respectively. The average age of the patients in the PAP flap group (39.1 ± 7.3 years) was lower than in the DIEP flap group (47.4 ± 7.7 years), and the body mass index (BMI) of patients undergoing PAP flap reconstruction (22.7 ± 2.8 kg/m2) was lower than those undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction (24.3 ± 3.4 kg/m2). There was no total loss of both flaps. Donor site morbidity was higher in the PAP flap group (11.1%) compared with the DIEP flap (1.0%). The rate of fat necrosis was higher in the PAP flaps (40.7%) than in the DIEP flaps (17.8%) during ultrasound.

Conclusion In our study, we found that PAP flap reconstruction tended to be performed in patients who were younger with lower BMIs compared with the DIEP flap. Successful reconstructive outcomes were observed in both the PAP and DIEP flaps; however, a higher rate of necrosis was observed in the PAP flap compared with the DIEP flap.

Keywords

profunda artery perforator flap - deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap - fat necrosis


Publication History

Received: 23 June 2022

Accepted: 08 January 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
21 February 2023

Article published online:
06 April 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Keller A. The deep inferior epigastric perforator free flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2001; 46 (05) 474-479 , discussion 479–480
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (01) 32-38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Qian B, Xiong L, Li J. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on microsurgical safety and efficacy of profunda artery perforator flap in breast reconstruction. J Oncol 2019; 2019: 9506720
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Dayan JH, Allen Jr RJ. Lower extremity free flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction): 77S-86S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Jo T, Jeon DN, Han HH. The PAP flap breast reconstruction: a practical option for slim patients. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (01) 27-33
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cho MJ, Garza R, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Utility of ERAS pathway in nonabdominal-based microsurgical breast reconstruction: efficacy in PAP flap reconstruction?. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (05) 371-377
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Schoeller T, Huemer GM, Wechselberger G. The transverse musculocutaneous gracilis flap for breast reconstruction: guidelines for flap and patient selection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (01) 29-38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Fosseprez P, Gerdom A, Servaes M, Deconinck C, Pirson G, Berners A. Profunda artery perforator flap: Reliable secondary option for breast reconstruction? [in French]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2017; 62 (06) 637-645
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Velicanu A, Boucher F, Braye F, Shipkov H, Brosset S, Mojallal A. Profunda femoral artery perforator flap: Anatomical study [in French]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2020; 65 (04) 313-319
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Allen Jr RJ, Lee ZH, Mayo JL, Levine J, Ahn C, Allen Sr RJ. The profunda artery perforator flap experience for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (05) 968-975
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Momenimovahed Z, Salehiniya H. Epidemiological characteristics of and risk factors for breast cancer in the world. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2019; 11: 151-164
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Kostev K, Kalder M. 20-year risk of breast cancer recurrence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 168 (03) 765-766
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Weigelt B, Geyer FC, Reis-Filho JS. Histological types of breast cancer: how special are they?. Mol Oncol 2010; 4 (03) 192-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Baumeister S, Werdin F, Peek A. The sGAP flap: rare exception or second choice in autologous breast reconstruction?. J Reconstr Microsurg 2010; 26 (04) 251-258
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 LoTempio MM, Allen RJ. Breast reconstruction with SGAP and IGAP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (02) 393-401
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 DeLong MR, Tandon VJ, Rudkin GH, Da Lio AL. Latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction-a nationwide inpatient sample review. Ann Plast Surg 2017; 78 (5, Suppl 4): S185-S188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Craggs B, Vanmierlo B, Zeltzer A, Buyl R, Haentjens P, Hamdi M. Donor-site morbidity following harvest of the transverse myocutaneous gracilis flap for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (05) 682e-691e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Allen RJ, Haddock NT, Ahn CY, Sadeghi A. Breast reconstruction with the profunda artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (01) 16e-23e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Haddock NT, Gassman A, Cho MJ, Teotia SS. 101 consecutive profunda artery perforator flaps in breast reconstruction: lessons learned with our early experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (02) 229-239
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Zaussinger M, Tinhofer IE, Hamscha U. et al. A head-to-head comparison of the vascular basis of the transverse myocutaneous gracilis, profunda artery perforator, and fasciocutaneous infragluteal flaps: an anatomical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (02) 381-390
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Atzeni M, Salzillo R, Haywood R, Persichetti P, Figus A. Breast reconstruction using the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap: technical refinements and evolution, outcomes, and patient satisfaction based on 116 consecutive flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75 (05) 1617-1624
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kozakowski J, Gietka-Czernel M, Leszczyńska D, Majos A. Obesity in menopause - our negligence or an unfortunate inevitability?. Przegl Menopauz 2017; 16 (02) 61-65
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Radecka B, Litwiniuk M. Breast cancer in young women. Ginekol Pol 2016; 87 (09) 659-663
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Artz JD, Atamian EK, Mulloy C, Stalder MW, Zampell J, Hilaire HS. Use of the vertical profunda artery perforator flap to capture the dominant perforator: a cadaver dissection and imaging study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (04) 284-291
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Rivera-Serrano CM, Aljaaly HA, Wu J, Cheng MH. Vertical PAP flap: simultaneous longitudinal profunda artery perforator flaps for bilateral breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (02) e1189
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Cho MJ, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Classification and management of donor-site wound complications in the profunda artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (02) 110-115
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Bhullar H, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM. Fat necrosis after DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a review of perfusion-related causes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (05) 1454-1461
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Peeters WJ, Nanhekhan L, Van Ongeval C, Fabré G, Vandevoort M. Fat necrosis in deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps: an ultrasound-based review of 202 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (06) 1754-1758
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Lee J, Park HY, Kim WW. et al. Natural course of fat necrosis after breast reconstruction: a 10-year follow-up study. BMC Cancer 2021; 21 (01) 166
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar