Anatomic Imaging of Gluteal Perforator Flaps without Ionizing Radiation: Seeing Is Believing with Magnetic Resonance Angiography

ABSTRACT

Preoperative imaging is essential for abdominal perforator flap breast reconstruction because it allows for preoperative perforator selection, resulting in improved operative efficiency and flap design. The benefits of visualizing the vasculature preoperatively also extend to gluteal artery perforator flaps. Initially, our practice used computed tomography angiography (CTA) to image the gluteal vessels. However, with advances in magnetic resonance imaging angiography (MRA), perforating vessels of 1-mm diameter can reliably be visualized without exposing patients to ionizing radiation or iodinated intravenous contrast. In our original MRA protocol to image abdominal flaps, we found the accuracy of MRA compared favorably with CTA. With our increased experience with MRA, we decided to use MRA to image gluteal flaps. Technical changes were made to the MRA protocol to improve image quality and extend the field of view. Using our new MRA protocol, we can image the vasculature of the buttock, abdomen, and upper thigh in one study. We have found that the spatial resolution of MRA is sufficient to accurately map gluteal perforating vessels, as well as provide information on vessel caliber and course. This article details our experience with preoperative imaging for gluteal perforator flap breast reconstruction.

KEYWORDS

Gluteal artery perforator flap - superior gluteal artery perforator flap - inferior gluteal artery perforator flap - magnetic resonance imaging angiography - preoperative imaging

REFERENCES

• 1 Blondeel P N, Demuynck M, Mete D et al.. Sensory nerve repair in perforator flaps for autologous breast reconstruction: sensational or senseless?.  Br J Plast Surg. 1999;  52 37-44
• 2 Tindholdt T T, Tonseth K A. Spontaneous regeneration of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps after secondary breast reconstruction.  Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2008;  42 28-31
• 3 Allen R J, Levine J L, Granzow J W. The in-the-crease inferior gluteal artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;  118 333-339
• 4 Allen R J, Tucker Jr C. Superior gluteal artery perforator free flap for breast reconstruction.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;  95 1207-1212
• 5 Guerra A B, Metzinger S E, Bidros R S, Gill P S, Dupin C L, Allen R J. Breast reconstruction with gluteal artery perforator (GAP) flaps: a critical analysis of 142 cases.  Ann Plast Surg. 2004;  52 118-125
• 6 Ahmadzadeh R, Bergeron L, Tang M, Morris S F. The superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;  120 1551-1556
• 7 Nojima K, Brown S A, Acikel C et al.. Defining vascular supply and territory of thinned perforator flaps: Part II Superior gluteal artery perforator flap.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;  118 1338-1348
• 8 Masia J, Clavero J A, Larrañaga J R, Alomar X, Pons G, Serret P. Multidetector-row computed tomography in the planning of abdominal perforator flaps.  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;  59 594-599
• 9 Rozen W M, Phillips T J, Ashton M W, Stella D L, Gibson R N, Taylor G I. Preoperative imaging for DIEA perforator flaps: a comparative study of computed tomographic angiography and Doppler ultrasound.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;  121 9-16
• 10 Brenner D J, Hall E J. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure.  N Engl J Med. 2007;  357 2277-2284
• 11 Stein R. Too much of a good thing? The growing use of CT scans fuel medical concerns regarding radiation exposure. Washington Post. January 15, 2008: F1
• 12 Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T et al.. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese committee on the safety of contrast media.  Radiology. 1990;  175 621-628
• 13 Parfrey P. The clinical epidemiology of contrast-induced nephropathy.  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2005;  28(suppl 2) S3-S11
• 14 Safety in medical imaging. American College Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Inc. http://Available at: www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray&bhcp=1 Accessed September 1, 2008
• 15 Varnholt H. Computed tomography and radiation exposure.  N Engl J Med. 2008;  358 852-853 author reply 852-853
• 16 Dillman J R, Ellis J H, Cohan R H, Strouse P J, Jan S C. Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing IV contrast media in children and adults.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;  189 1533-1538
• 17 Niendorf H P, Alhassan A, Geens V R, Clauss W. Safety review of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Extended clinical experience after more than five million applications.  Invest Radiol. 1994;  29(suppl 2) S179-S182
• 18 Cowper S E. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy [NFD/NSF Website]. 2001–2007. Available at: http://www.icnfdr.org Accessed August 7, 2008
• 19 Scheinfeld N S, Cowper S E. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy. January 25, 2008. Available at: http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic934.htm Accessed August 7, 2008
• 20 Shellock F G, Crues J V. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care.  Radiology. 2004;  232 635-652