Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750124
Perforator Characteristics and Impact on Postoperative Outcomes in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Background High-quality evidence on perforator selection in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap harvesting is lacking, making preoperative planning and choice of perforators “surgeon-specific.” This lack of consensus is a subject of continuous debate among microsurgeons. We aimed to systematically review perforator characteristics and their impact on DIEP flap breast reconstruction outcomes.
Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis across six databases: ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for all studies on DIEP flap breast reconstruction focused on perforator characteristics—caliber, number, and location. The primary goal was to analyze the impact of perforator characteristics on partial and/or total flap failure and fat necrosis. Data was analyzed using RevMan V5.3.
Results Initial search gave us 2,768 articles of which 17 were included in our review. Pooled analysis did not show any statistically significant correlations between partial and/or total flap failure and perforator number, or perforator location. Sensitivity analysis accounting for heterogeneity across studies showed that, the risk for fat necrosis was significantly higher if single perforators (relative risk [RR] = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5–2.6, I 2 = 39%) and medial row perforators (RR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.8–3.9, I 2 = 0%) were used.
Conclusion Our findings suggest that a single dominant perforator and medial row perforators may be associated with higher risk of fat necrosis after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Adopting a standardized perforator selection algorithm may facilitate operative decision making, shorten the learning curve for novice surgeons, and optimize postoperative outcomes by minimizing the burden of major complications. This in turn would help improve patient satisfaction and quality of life.
* These authors contributed to the conduct of this study equally and are to be considered co-first authors.
Publication History
Received: 08 August 2021
Accepted: 23 April 2021
Article published online:
17 June 2022
© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. . 2019 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report; 2019. Accessed April 6, 2021 at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2019/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2019.pdf
- 2 He WY, El Eter L, Yesantharao P. et al. Complications and patient-reported outcomes after TRAM and DIEP flaps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (10) e3120
- 3 Skraastad BK, Knudsen C, Jackson C, Utheim TP, Pripp AH, Tønseth KA. Quality of life, patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome after delayed breast reconstruction using DIEP flap: a 10 years' follow-up survey. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2019; 53 (02) 119-124
- 4 Mulvey CL, Cooney CM, Daily FF. et al. Increased flap weight and decreased perforator number predict fat necrosis in DIEP breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013; 1 (02) 1-7
- 5 Grover R, Nelson JA, Fischer JP, Kovach SJ, Serletti JM, Wu LC. The impact of perforator number on deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41 (01) 63-70
- 6 Kamali P, Lee M, Becherer BE. et al. Medial row perforators are associated with higher rates of fat necrosis in bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (01) 19-24
- 7 Teunis T, Heerma van Voss MR, Kon M, van Maurik JFMM. CT-angiography prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (06) 496-502
- 8 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339 (7716): b2535
- 9 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700
- 10 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training. Accessed March 24, 2021 at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
- 11 Garvey PB, Salavati S, Feng L, Butler CE. Abdominal donor-site outcomes for medial versus lateral deep inferior epigastric artery branch perforator harvest. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (06) 2198-2205
- 12 Garvey PB, Salavati S, Feng L, Butler CE. Perfusion-related complications are similar for DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps harvested on medial or lateral deep inferior epigastric artery branch perforators for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (06) 581e-589e
- 13 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
- 14 Yu B, Gastwirth JL. A method of assessing the sensitivity of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to an unobserved confounder. Philos Trans- Royal Soc, Math Phys Eng Sci 2008; 366 (1874): 2377-2388
- 15 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
- 16 Cochrane Review.. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses | Cochrane Training. Accessed April 19, 2021 at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10
- 17 Uppal RS, Casaer B, Van Landuyt K, Blondeel P. The efficacy of preoperative mapping of perforators in reducing operative times and complications in perforator flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62 (07) 859-864
- 18 Baumann DP, Lin HY, Chevray PM. Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (05) 1335-1341
- 19 Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB. et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (04) 1153-1160
- 20 Bailey SH, Saint-Cyr M, Wong C. et al. The single dominant medial row perforator DIEP flap in breast reconstruction: three-dimensional perforasome and clinical results. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (03) 739-751
- 21 Gravvanis A, Tsoutsos D, Papanikolaou G, Diab A, Lambropoulou P, Karakitsos D. Refining perforator selection for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: the impact of the dominant venous perforator. Microsurgery 2014; 34 (03) 169-176
- 22 Mohan AT, Zhu L, Wang Z, Vijayasekaran A, Saint-Cyr M. Techniques and perforator selection in single, dominant DIEP flap breast reconstruction: algorithmic approach to maximize efficiency and safety. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (05) 790e-803e
- 23 Zhang A, Dayicioglu D. Outcomes of 270 consecutive deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (6S, Suppl 6): S388-S394
- 24 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
- 25 Lee KT, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Han BK, Mun GH. Is Holm Zone III safe from fat necrosis in medial row perforator-based deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps?. Microsurgery 2015; 35 (04) 272-278
- 26 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
- 27 Uda H, Tomioka YK, Sarukawa S, Sunaga A, Sugawara Y. Comparison of abdominal wall morbidity between medial and lateral row-based deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (11) 1550-1555
- 28 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
- 29 Dusseldorp JR, Pennington DG. Quantifying blood flow in the DIEP flap: an ultrasonographic study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014; 2 (10) e228
- 30 Patel SA, Keller A. A theoretical model describing arterial flow in the DIEP flap related to number and size of perforator vessels. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008; 61 (11) 1316-1320 , discussion 1320
- 31 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
- 32 Itoh Y, Arai K. The deep inferior epigastric artery free skin flap: anatomic study and clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 91 (05) 853-863 , discussion 864
- 33 Munhoz AM, Ishida LH, Sturtz GP. et al. Importance of lateral row perforator vessels in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap harvesting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (02) 517-524
- 34 Kroll SS, Marchi M. Comparison of strategies for preventing abdominal-wall weakness after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 89 (06) 1045-1051 , discussion 1052–1053
- 35 Hartrampf Jr CR. Abdominal wall competence in transverse abdominal island flap operations. Ann Plast Surg 1984; 12 (02) 139-146
- 36 Rozen WM, Ashton MW, Kiil BJ. et al. Avoiding denervation of rectus abdominis in DIEP flap harvest II: an intraoperative assessment of the nerves to rectus. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (05) 1321-1325
- 37 Rozen WM, Ashton MW, Murray ACA, Taylor GI. Avoiding denervation of rectus abdominis in DIEP flap harvest: the importance of medial row perforators. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (03) 710-716
- 38 Lee K-T, Eom Y, Jeon B-J, Mun G-H. Vertical spacing of perforators in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction can affect the outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (02) 319-329
- 39 Daly LT, Doval AF, Lin SJ, Tobias A, Lee BT, Dowlatshahi AS. Role of CTA in women with abdominal scars undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction: review of 1,187 flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (04) 294-300
- 40 Lindsey Jr JT, Smith C, Lee J, St Hilaire H, Lindsey Sr JT. Mapping 216 perforator flaps using highly portable tablet-based color Doppler ultrasound (PT-CDU). . [published online ahead of print, 2021 Aug 24] J Reconstr Microsurg 2021;
- 41 Fuse Y, Yoshimatsu H, Karakawa R, Yano T. Novel classification of the branching patterns of the superficial branch and the deep branch of the superficial circumflex iliac artery and the superficial inferior epigastric artery on computed tomographic angiography. [published online ahead of print, 2021 Aug 28] J Reconstr Microsurg 2021;
- 42 Boer VB, van Wingerden JJ, Wever CF, Beets MR, Verhaegen PD, Hamdi M. Perforator mapping practice for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstructions: a survey of the Benelux region. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (02) 111-118
- 43 DelMauro MA, Moon VA. Obesity and the abdominal wall vasculature: correlating BMI with perforator anatomy. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (06) 438-444