A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Microvascular Stacked and Conjoined-Flap Breast Reconstruction

Abstract

Background Stacked and conjoined (SC) flaps are a useful means of increasing flap volume in autologous breast reconstruction. The majority of studies, however, have been limited to smaller, single-center series.

Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify outcomes-based studies on microvascular SC-flap breast reconstruction. Pooled rates of flap and operative characteristics were analyzed. Meta-analytic effect size estimates were calculated for reconstructive complication rates and outcomes of studies comparing SC flaps to non-SC flaps. Meta-regression analysis identified risk factors for flap complications.

Results Twenty-six studies were included for analysis (21 case series, five retrospective cohort studies) for a total of 869 patients, 1,003 breasts, and 2006 flaps. The majority of flaps were harvested from the bilateral abdomen (78%, 782 breasts) followed by combined abdomen-thigh stacked flaps (22.2%, 128 breasts). About 51.1% of flaps were anastomosed to anterograde/retrograde internal mammary vessels (230 breasts) and 41.8% used internal mammary/intraflap anastomoses (188 breasts). Meta-analysis revealed a rate of any flap complication of 2.3% (95% confidence interval: 1.4–3.3%), Q-statistic value p = 0.012 (I ² = 43.3%). SC flaps had a decreased risk of fat necrosis compared with non-SC flaps (odds ratio = 0.126, p < 0.0001, I ² = 0.00%), though rates of any flap and donor-site complication were similar. Age, body mass index, flap weight, and flap donor site and recipient vessels were not associated with increased risk of any flap complication.

Conclusion A global appraisal of the current evidence demonstrated the safety of SC-flap breast reconstruction with low complication rates, regardless of donor site, and lower rates of fat necrosis compared with non-SC flaps.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - stacked flap - free flap - systematic review - meta-analysis

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 10. September 2020

Angenommen: 21. Dezember 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
16. Februar 2021

• References

• 1 Eltahir Y, Werners LL, Dreise MM, Zeijlmans van Emmichoven IA, Werker PM, de Bock GH. Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (01) 43-50
• 2 Jeevan R, Browne JP, Gulliver-Clarke C. et al. Surgical determinants of patient-reported outcomes following postmastectomy reconstruction in women with breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (05) 1036e-1045e
• 3 Liu C, Zhuang Y, Momeni A. et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after microsurgical abdominal flap versus staged expander/implant breast reconstruction: a critical study of unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using patient-reported outcomes instrument BREAST-Q. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 146 (01) 117-126
• 4 Pennington DG, Nettle WJ, Lam P. Microvascular augmentation of the blood supply of the contralateral side of the free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap. Ann Plast Surg 1993; 31 (02) 123-126 , discussion 126–127
• 5 Murray A, Wasiak J, Rozen WM, Ferris S, Grinsell D. Stacked abdominal flap for unilateral breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31 (03) 179-186
• 6 Patel NG, Rozen WM, Chow WT. et al. Stacked and bipedicled abdominal free flaps for breast reconstruction: considerations for shaping. Gland Surg 2016; 5 (02) 115-121
• 7 Hernandez Rosa J, Sherif RD, Torina PJ, Harmaty MA. Use of both antegrade and retrograde internal mammary vessels in the bipedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for unilateral breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70 (01) 47-53
• 8 Chang EI, Kronowitz SJ. Dual-pedicle flap for unilateral autologous breast reconstruction revisited: evolution and optimization of flap design over 15 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (05) 1372-1380
• 9 Ali RS, Garrido A, Ramakrishnan V. Stacked free hemi-DIEP flaps: a method of autologous breast reconstruction in a patient with midline abdominal scarring. Br J Plast Surg 2002; 55 (04) 351-353
• 10 Haddock NT, Cho MJ, Gassman A, Teotia SS. Stacked profunda artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction in failed or unavailable deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (03) 488e-494e
• 11 Hamdi M, Khuthaila DK, Van Landuyt K, Roche N, Monstrey S. Double-pedicle abdominal perforator free flaps for unilateral breast reconstruction: new horizons in microsurgical tissue transfer to the breast. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60 (08) 904-912 , discussion 913–914
• 12 Koolen PG, Lee BT, Lin SJ, Erhard HA, Greenspun DT. Bipedicle-conjoined perforator flaps in breast reconstruction. J Surg Res 2015; 197 (02) 256-264
• 13 Malata CM, Rabey NG. Decision Making in double-pedicled DIEP and SIEA abdominal free flap breast reconstructions: an algorithmic approach and comprehensive classification. Front Surg 2015; 2: 49
• 14 DellaCroce FJ, Sullivan SK, Trahan C. Stacked deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: a review of 110 flaps in 55 cases over 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (03) 1093-1099
• 15 Beahm EK, Walton RL. The efficacy of bilateral lower abdominal free flaps for unilateral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (01) 41-54
• 16 Tessler O, Guste J, Bartow MJ. et al. Stacked lateral thigh perforator flap as a novel option for autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (06) 1601-1604
• 17 Ciudad P, Maruccia M, Orfaniotis G. et al. The combined transverse upper gracilis and profunda artery perforator (TUGPAP) flap for breast reconstruction. Microsurgery 2016; 36 (05) 359-366
• 18 Mayo JL, Allen RJ, Sadeghi A. Four-flap breast reconstruction: bilateral stacked DIEP and PAP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (05) e383
• 19 Stalder MW, Lam J, Allen RJ, Sadeghi A. Using the retrograde internal mammary system for stacked perforator flap breast reconstruction: 71 breast reconstructions in 53 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (02) 265e-277e
• 20 Beugels J, Vasile JV, Tuinder SMH. et al. The stacked hemiabdominal extended perforator flap for autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (06) 1424-1434
• 21 Li S, Mu L, Li Y. et al. Breast reconstruction with the free bipedicled inferior TRAM flap by anastomosis to the proximal and distal ends of the internal mammary vessels. J Reconstr Microsurg 2002; 18 (03) 161-168
• 22 Kim SY, Lee KT, Mun GH. Computed tomographic angiography-based planning of bipedicled DIEP flaps with intraflap crossover anastomosis: an anatomical and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (03) 409e-418e
• 23 Haddock N, Nagarkar P, Teotia SS. Versatility of the profunda artery perforator flap: creative uses in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (03) 606e-612e
• 24 Haddock NT, Cho MJ, Teotia SS. Comparative analysis of single versus stacked free flap breast reconstruction: a single-center experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (03) 369e-377e
• 25 Tomouk T, Mohan AT, Azizi A, Conci E, Brickley EB, Malata CM. Donor site morbidity in DIEP free flap breast reconstructions: a comparison of unilateral, bilateral, and bipedicled surgical procedure types. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70 (11) 1505-1513
• 26 Xu H, Dong J, Wang T. Bipedicle deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for unilateral breast reconstruction: seven years' experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (06) 1797-1807
• 27 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1006-1012
• 28 Sullivan D, Chung KC, Eaves III FF, Rohrich RJ. The level of evidence pyramid: indicating levels of evidence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery articles. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (01) 311-314
• 29 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7 (03) 177-188
• 30 Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22 (04) 719-748
• 31 Lawson R. Small sample confidence intervals for the odds ratio. Commun Stat Simul Comput 2004; 33: 1095-1113
• 32 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21 (11) 1539-1558
• 33 Choi SW, Lam DM. Heterogeneity in meta-analyses. Comparing apples and oranges?. Anaesthesia 2017; 72 (04) 532-534
• 34 R. H. J. H. METAREG: Stata module to perform meta-analysis regression,” Statistical Software Components S446201, Boston College Department of Economics. 2004 . Accessed May 15, 2020 at: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s446201.html
• 35 Batdorf NJ, Lemaine V, Lovely JK. et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery in microvascular breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (03) 395-402
• 36 Hunter C, Shakir A, Momeni A. et al. Transversus abdominis plane block and free flap abdominal tissue breast reconstruction: is there a true reduction in postoperative narcotic use?. Ann Plast Surg 2017; 78 (03) 254-259
• 37 Salibian AA, Frey JD, Thanik VD, Karp NS, Choi M. Transversus abdominis plane blocks in microsurgical breast reconstruction: analysis of pain, narcotic consumption, length of stay, and cost. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (03) 252e-263e
• 38 Teotia SS, Dumestre DO, Jayaraman AP, Sanniec KJ, Haddock NT. Revisiting anastomosis to the retrograde internal mammary system in stacked free flap breast reconstruction: an algorithmic approach to recipient-site selection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (04) 880-887
• 39 Bozikov K, Arnez T, Hertl K, Arnez ZM. Fat necrosis in free DIEAP flaps: incidence, risk, and predictor factors. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 63 (02) 138-142
• 40 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
• 41 Khansa I, Momoh AO, Patel PP, Nguyen JT, Miller MJ, Lee BT. Fat necrosis in autologous abdomen-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (03) 443-452
• 42 Wong C, Saint-Cyr M, Mojallal A. et al. Perforasomes of the DIEP flap: vascular anatomy of the lateral versus medial row perforators and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (03) 772-782
• 43 Losken A, Zenn MR, Hammel JA, Walsh MW, Carlson GW. Assessment of zonal perfusion using intraoperative angiography during abdominal flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (04) 618e-624e
• 44 Han HH, Kang MK, Choe J. et al. Estimation of contralateral perfusion in the DIEP flap by scoring the midline-crossing vessels in computed tomographic angiography. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (04) 697e-705e
• 45 Holm C, Mayr M, Höfter E, Ninkovic M. The versatility of the SIEA flap: a clinical assessment of the vascular territory of the superficial epigastric inferior artery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60 (08) 946-951
• 46 Seth AK, Koolen PGL, Sultan SM, Lee BT, Erhard HA, Greenspun DT. Unilateral autologous breast reconstruction with bi-pedicled, conjoined deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (02) 145-155
• 47 Ng RL, Youssef A, Kronowitz SJ, Lipa JE, Potochny J, Reece GP. Technical variations of the bipedicled TRAM flap in unilateral breast reconstruction: effects of conventional versus microsurgical techniques of pedicle transfer on complications rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (02) 374-384 , discussion 385–388
• 48 Momeni A, Sorice SC, Li AY, Nguyen DH, Pannucci C. Breast reconstruction with free abdominal flaps is associated with persistent lower extremity venous stasis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (06) 1144e-1150e
• 49 Qiu CS, Jordan SW, Dorfman RG, Vu MM, Alghoul MS, Kim JYS. Surgical duration impacts venous thromboembolism risk in microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (01) 47-58
• 50 Nwaogu I, Yan Y, Margenthaler JA, Myckatyn TM. Venous thromboembolism after breast reconstruction in patients undergoing breast surgery: an American College of Surgeons NSQIP analysis. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 220 (05) 886-893
• 51 Subichin MP, Patel NV, Wagner DS. Method of breast reconstruction determines venous thromboembolism risk better than current prediction models. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (05) e397
• 52 Enajat M, Damen TH, Geenen A, Timman R, van der Hulst RR, Mureau MA. Pulmonary embolism after abdominal flap breast reconstruction: prediction and prevention. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (06) 1213-1222
• 53 Lemaine V, McCarthy C, Kaplan K. et al. Venous thromboembolism following microsurgical breast reconstruction: an objective analysis in 225 consecutive patients using low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (04) 1399-1406
• 54 Sultan SM, Jackson DS, Erhard HA. et al. Risk factors for postoperative venous thromboembolic complications after microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (04) 227-234
• 55 Uda H, Tomioka YK, Sarukawa S. et al. Abdominal morbidity after single- versus double-pedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator flap use. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (09) 1178-1183
• 56 Agarwal JP, Gottlieb LJ. Double pedicle deep inferior epigastric perforator/muscle-sparing TRAM flaps for unilateral breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 58 (04) 359-363
• 57 O’Neill AC, Ngan NC, Platt J, Mahomed A, Zhong T, Hofer SO. A decision-making algorithm for recipient vein selection in bipedicle deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (08) 1089-1093
• 58 Salgarello M, Barone-Adesi L, Sturla M, Masetti R, Mu L. Needing a large DIEAP flap for unilateral breast reconstruction: double-pedicle flap and unipedicle flap with additional venous discharge. Microsurgery 2010; 30 (02) 111-117