A variety of useful recipient sites exist for breast reconstruction with free flaps, and correct selection remains a significant decision for the surgeon. Among the main pedicles, the disadvantages of the internal mammary vessels are the necessity of costal cartilage resection and the impairment of future cardiac bypass. This study was designed to reduce morbidity and to seek alternative recipient vessels. In the anatomical part of the study, 32 parasternal regions from 16 fresh cadavers were used. The locations and components of internal mammary perforator branches were measured and a histomorphometric analysis was performed. In the clinical part of the study, 36 patients underwent 38 deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and two superior gluteal artery perforator flap breast reconstructions (31 immediate and four bilateral). The recipient vessels were evaluated. In the anatomical study, there were 22 perforating vessels, with 14 (63.6 percent) on the second intercostal space and 11 (50 percent) with one artery and vein. The average (+/-SD) internal and external perforator artery diameters were 598.48 +/- 176.68 microm and 848.97 +/- 276.68 microm, respectively. In the clinical study, 13 successful anastomoses (32.5 percent) were performed at the internal mammary perforator branches (second and third intercostal spaces) with 12 DIEP flaps and one superior gluteal artery perforator flap (all performed as immediate reconstructions). One case of intraoperative vein thrombosis and one case of pedicle avulsion during flap molding were observed. The anatomic and clinical studies demonstrated that the internal mammary perforator branch as a recipient site is a further refinement to free flap breast reconstruction. However, it is neither a reproducible technique nor potentially applicable in all patients. Preoperative planning between the general surgeon and the plastic surgeon is crucial to preserve the main perforator branches during mastectomy. The procedure was not demonstrable in late reconstructions. The main advantages of internal mammary perforator branches used as recipient sites are sparing of the internal mammary vessels for a possible future cardiac surgery, prevention of thoracic deformities, and reduction of the operative time by limited dissection. Despite this, limited surgical exposure, caliber incompatibility, and technical difficulties have to be considered as the main restrictions.

Free flaps based on perforator vessels, and in particular the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, are currently being applied in abdominal reconstruction. However, one of the main disadvantages is the operative complexity. Through anatomical study and clinical experience with the DIEP flap in breast reconstruction, the intramuscular path of the perforator vessels was comparatively studied, to establish the main anatomical parameters that favor procedure planning. Thirty DIEP flaps from 15 fresh cadavers were used. The number, location, and intramuscular course of the perforator vessels were determined. In addition, an initial clinical study was performed in 31 patients using 35 DIEP flaps in breast reconstruction. The number, location, and the intramuscular course of the perforators were assessed. In the cadaver study, 191 perforator vessels were detected (6.4 vessels per flap). Thirty-four percent were located in the lateral row, and the rectilinear course was observed in 79.2 percent of these vessels. In the medial row, only 18.2 percent of the perforator vessels presented this configuration (p = 0.001). Thirty-one patients underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction, with 26 immediate and four bilateral reconstructions. In 22 of 35 flaps (62.9 percent), two perforators were used. In 25 flaps (71.4 percent), the lateral row perforators with a rectilinear course were observed. Mean operative time was 7 hours and 37 minutes. Two total flap losses and two partial necroses were observed. The majority of the lateral row perforators presented a rectilinear intramuscular course, which was shorter than that of the medial row perforators. This anatomical characteristic favors dissection with reduced operative time and vascular lesion morbidity, resulting in an important anatomical parameter for DIEP flap harvesting.

Abdominal liposuction does not induce regrowth of fat, but it does trigger a compensatory increase of visceral fat, which is effectively counteracted by physical activity.

This flap is an alternative to myocutaneous flaps, as it preserves local musculature without functional sequelae in patients who walk. It also preserves the local musculature in the event of recurrence, as is usually seen in paralytic patients with pressure sores.