Morphomic Analysis for Preoperative Donor Site Risk Assessment in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Proof of Concept Study

Abstract

Background Morphomics are three-dimensional measurements of aspects of the human anatomy generated by computed tomographic (CT) imaging. The purpose of this study was to generate preliminary data on the efficacy of morphomics, as a potential risk stratification tool, in predicting abdominal donor site wound-healing complications in patients undergoing abdominal perforator flap breast reconstruction.

Patients and Methods In total, 58 consecutive patients undergoing deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction were evaluated. Using preoperative CT scan data, we quantified patients' body area, visceral and subcutaneous fat, fascia area, and body depth between T12 and L4. Associations between morphomic measures and complication rates were examined using t-tests and logistic regression.

Results Of the 58 patients, 11 (19%) patients developed a wound dehiscence and 47 (81%) patients healed their abdominal incision without complications. Patients with a dehiscence had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (34.32 vs. 29.26 kg/m², p = 0.014) than patients without a dehiscence. Multiple morphometric measures including higher visceral fat area (p = 0.003) were significant predictors of abdominal donor site wound dehiscence. BMI (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.32; p = 0.017) and visceral fat area (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08–1.42; p = 0.002) were independently significant predictors for wound dehiscence in the entire sample. Only visceral fat area retained its predictive ability in patients with a BMI > 30 kg/m².

Conclusions Morphomic measurements correlate with the likelihood of developing postoperative donor site dehiscence after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. As a proof of concept study, this demonstrates that objective data obtained from CT scans may help in preoperatively assessing the risk for donor site wound healing complications in patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction.

Keywords

morphomics - perforator flap - breast reconstruction - donor site complications - risk assessment

Note

This article was presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Plastic Surgery Research Council, May 2013 in Santa Monica, CA. It was also presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress, October 2013 in Washington, DC.

• References

• 1 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (1) 32-38
• 2 Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, Westvik TS , et al. Analysis of complications and patient satisfaction in pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69 (1) 19-23
• 3 Garvey PB, Buchel EW, Pockaj BA , et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (6) 1711-1719 , discussion 1720–1721
• 4 Kroll SS, Sharma S, Koutz C , et al; Evans GRD. Postoperative morphine requirements of free TRAM and DIEP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (2) 338-341
• 5 Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T , et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (6) 1585-1595
• 6 Nahabedian MY, Momen B, Galdino G, Manson PN. Breast Reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap: patient selection, choice of flap, and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (2) 466-475 , discussion 476–477
• 7 Scheer AS, Novak CB, Neligan PC, Lipa JE. Complications associated with breast reconstruction using a perforator flap compared with a free TRAM flap. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 56 (4) 355-358
• 8 Nahabedian MY, Tsangaris T, Momen B. Breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap or the muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM flap: is there a difference?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115 (2) 436-444 , discussion 445–446
• 9 Blondeel PN. One hundred free DIEP flap breast reconstructions: a personal experience. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52 (2) 104-111
• 10 Vyas RM, Dickinson BP, Fastekjian JH, Watson JP, Dalio AL, Crisera CA. Risk factors for abdominal donor-site morbidity in free flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (5) 1519-1526
• 11 Jandali S, Nelson JA, Sonnad SS , et al. Breast reconstruction with free tissue transfer from the abdomen in the morbidly obese. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (6) 2206-2213
• 12 Garvey PB, Villa MT, Rozanski AT, Liu J, Robb GL, Beahm EK. The advantages of free abdominal-based flaps over implants for breast reconstruction in obese patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (5) 991-1000
• 13 Lee JS, Terjimanian MN, Tishberg LM , et al. Surgical site infection and analytic morphometric assessment of body composition in patients undergoing midline laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 213 (2) 236-244
• 14 Englesbe MJ, Lee JS, He K , et al. Analytic morphomics, core muscle size, and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg 2012; 256 (2) 255-261
• 15 Kim H, Lim SY, Pyon JK, Bang SI, Oh KS, Mun GH. Preoperative computed tomographic angiography of both donor and recipient sites for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (1) 11e-20e
• 16 Smit JM, Dimopoulou A, Liss AG , et al. Preoperative CT angiography reduces surgery time in perforator flap reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62 (9) 1112-1117
• 17 Fischer JP, Nelson JA, Kovach SJ, Serletti JM, Wu LC, Kanchwala S. Impact of obesity on outcomes in breast reconstruction: analysis of 15,937 patients from the ACS-NSQIP datasets. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217 (4) 656-664
• 18 Kroll SS, Netscher DT. Complications of TRAM flap breast reconstruction in obese patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 84 (6) 886-892
• 19 Englesbe MJ, Patel SP, He K , et al. Sarcopenia and mortality after liver transplantation. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 211 (2) 271-278
• 20 Lee JS, He K, Harbaugh CM , et al; Michigan Analytic Morphomics Group (MAMG). Frailty, core muscle size, and mortality in patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2011; 53 (4) 912-917