Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40(06): 443-451
DOI: 10.1055/a-2205-2337
Original Article

Aesthetic Evaluation and Validation: Umbilicus Reconstruction after DIEP Flap

Nicholas T. Haddock
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas
,
Cyrus Steppe
2   Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Sumeet S. Teotia
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The most common method for autologous breast reconstruction is the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. The umbilicus can be managed in various ways, including re-inset, neoumbilicus, and umbilectomy without reconstruction. This study evaluated the aesthetic differences in umbilicus reconstruction choice and variation in patients' postoperative satisfaction with their abdomen.

Methods A retrospective review of 1,019 patients treated with DIEP flap breast reconstruction between August 2009 and January 2022 was conducted. Patients were stratified by management of the umbilicus: preservation and re-inset of the native umbilicus, umbilectomy with delayed reconstruction, and umbilectomy with no reconstruction. A crowdsourced survey was created to assess the aesthetic preference of each photograph using a Likert scale.

Results There were 1,063 responses to the umbilicus preference crowd source survey. Patients who had delayed umbilicus reconstruction after umbilectomy were rated to be significantly more attractive (4.397 ± 1.697) than both preservation of the native umbilicus (4.176 ± 1.669) and lack of the umbilicus (3.994 ± 1.733; p < 0.001 and <0.001, respectively). In an analysis of the BREAST-Q scores, delayed reconstruction patients had a similar change across measures when compared to the re-inset group. The delayed group had a significantly higher change in overall satisfaction and well-being with abdomen when compared with the no reconstruction group (p = 0.006 and 0.027, respectively).

Conclusion This study demonstrates that umbilectomy with delayed reconstruction yields a significantly higher aesthetic rating and comparable patient satisfaction when compared to re-inset of the umbilicus.

Keywords

autologous - DIEP - umbilicus

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 28 August 2023

Accepted: 05 November 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 November 2023

Article published online:
20 December 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Nahabedian MY. Defining the “gold standard” in breast reconstruction with abdominal tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (03) 804-806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Haddock NT, Suszynski TM, Teotia SS. An individualized patient-centric approach and evolution towards total autologous free flap breast reconstruction in an academic setting. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (04) e2681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2018; 153 (10) 901-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Niddam J, Bosc R, Lange F. et al. DIEP flap for breast reconstruction: retrospective evaluation of patient satisfaction on abdominal results. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (06) 789-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Salgarello M, Tambasco D, Farallo E. DIEP flap donor site versus elective abdominoplasty short-term complication rates: a meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (02) 363-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Miseré RM, van Kuijk SM, Claassens EL, Heuts EM, Piatkowski AA, van der Hulst RR. Breast-related and body-related quality of life following autologous breast reconstruction is superior to implant-based breast reconstruction: a long-term follow-up study. Breast 2021; 59: 176-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Visser NJ, Damen THC, Timman R, Hofer SOP, Mureau MAM. Surgical results, aesthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction after microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction following failed implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (01) 26-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hembd A, Teotia SS, Zhu H, Haddock NT. Optimizing perforator selection: a multivariable analysis of predictors for fat necrosis and abdominal morbidity in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (03) 583-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Haddock NT, Culver AJ, Teotia SS. Abdominal weakness, bulge, or hernia after DIEP flaps: An algorithm of management, prevention, and surgical repair with classification. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74 (09) 2194-2201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hardy KL, Davis KE, Constantine RS. et al. The impact of operative time on complications after plastic surgery: a multivariate regression analysis of 1753 cases. Aesthet Surg J 2014; 34 (04) 614-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Haddock NT, Teotia SS. Efficient DIEP flap: bilateral breast reconstruction in less than four hours. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021; 9 (09) e3801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Haddock NT, Garza R, Boyle CE, Teotia SS. Observations from implementation of the ERAS protocol after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (06) 506-510
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Haddock NT, Kelling JA, Teotia SS. Neoumbilicus after selective excision in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (05) 548e-551e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Akbaş H, Güneren E, Eroğlu L, Uysal OA. Natural-looking umbilicus as an important part of abdominoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003; 27 (02) 139-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Craig SB, Faller MS, Puckett CL. In search of the ideal female umbilicus. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105 (01) 389-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lee SJ, Garg S, Lee HP. Computer-aided analysis of the “beautiful” umbilicus. Aesthet Surg J 2014; 34 (05) 748-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pallua N, Markowicz MP, Grosse F, Walter S. Aesthetically pleasant umbilicoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 64 (06) 722-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Teotia SS, Alford JA, Kadakia Y, Haddock NT. Crowdsourced assessment of aesthetic outcomes after breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 147 (03) 570-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wu C, Scott Hultman C, Diegidio P. et al. What do our patients truly want? conjoint analysis of an aesthetic plastic surgery practice using internet crowdsourcing. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (01) 105-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (02) 345-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pusic AL, Matros E, Fine N. et al. Patient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (22) 2499-2506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Visconti G, Visconti E, Bonomo L, Salgarello M. Concepts in navel aesthetic: a comprehensive surface anatomy analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015; 39 (01) 43-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hunstad JP, Repta R. The umbilicus in body contouring. In: Atlas of Abdominoplasty. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2009: 141-156
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Vernon S. Umbilical transplantation upward and abdominal contouring in lipectomy. Am J Surg 1957; 94 (03) 490-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lee YT, Kwon C, Rhee SC, Cho SH, Eo SR. Four flaps technique for neoumbilicoplasty. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42 (03) 351-355
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dean RA, Dean JA, Matarasso A. Secondary abdominoplasty: management of the umbilicus after prior stalk transection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (04) 729e-733e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 da Silva Júnior VV, de Sousa FRS. Improvement on the neo-umbilicoplasty technique and review of the literature. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41 (03) 600-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Malic CC, Spyrou GE, Hough M, Fourie L. Patient satisfaction with two different methods of umbilicoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (01) 357-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 van Veldhuisen CL, Kamali P, Wu W. et al. Prospective, double-blind evaluation of umbilicoplasty techniques using conventional and crowdsourcing methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (06) 1151-1162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fisher M, Bank J, Alba B. et al. Umbilical ablation during deep inferior epigastric perforator flap harvest decreases donor site complications. Ann Plast Surg 2020; 85 (03) 260-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kevin P, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. To ablate or not to ablate: the question if umbilectomy decreases donor site complications in DIEP flap breast reconstruction?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024; 153 (02) 305-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lakatta AC, Steppe C, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Reduction in seroma rate following deep inferior epigastric perforator flap with umbilectomy utilizing progressive tension sutures. J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40 (02) 118-122
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wen YE, Steppe C, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Operative time predicts long-term abdominal morbidity and complication requiring treatment after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40 (03) 217-226
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hoyos AE, Perez ME, Mogollon IR, Arcila A. H-wing neoumbilicoplasty: a new technique for advanced abdominoplasty and umbilical zones by gender. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 151 (01) 52-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Stone JP, Bello RJ, Siotos C. et al. Patient-related risk factors for worsened abdominal well-being after autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (03) 475e-480e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar