BackgroundAutologous or implant-based breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy is increasingly preferred worldwide as a breast cancer treatment option. However, postoperative nipple-areola complex (NAC) necrosis is the most significant complication of nipple-sparing mastectomy. The purpose of our study was to identify the risk factors for NAC necrosis, and to describe the use of our skin-banking technique as a solution.MethodsWe reviewed cases of immediate autologous breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy at our institution between June 2005 and January 2014. The patients' data were reviewed and the risk of NAC necrosis was analyzed based on correlations between patient variables and NAC necrosis. Moreover, data pertaining to five high-risk patients who underwent the donor skin-banking procedure were included in the analysis.ResultsEighty-five patients underwent immediate autologous breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy during the study period. Partial or total NAC necrosis occurred in 36 patients (43.4%). Univariate analysis and binary regression modeling found that body mass index, smoking history, radiation therapy, and mastectomy volume were significantly associated with NAC necrosis. Of the 36 cases of NAC necrosis, 31 were resolved with dressing changes, debridement, or skin grafting. The other five high-risk patients underwent our prophylactic skin-banking technique during breast reconstruction surgery.ConclusionsNAC necrosis is common in patients with multiple risk factors. The use of the skin-banking technique in immediate autologous breast reconstruction is an attractive option for high-risk patients. Banked skin can be used in such cases without requiring additional donor tissue, with good results in terms of aesthetic and reconstructive outcomes.

Un-healing and centrally located defect on back area, it is sometimes a challenge for the reconstructive surgeon. Although skin grafts are considered as the first choice for reconstruction of large skin defect on the back region, it is not always helpful but vascularized flaps provide a superior functional and aesthetic outcome. The present study was designed to investigate the clinical anatomy of the lumbar artery perforator flap to reconstruct back ulcer. Materials and Methods: Clinical anatomy study was undertaken using computed tomographic angiographic analysis. We identified the courses of lumbar arteries and its perforators, measured pedicle length by layers. The location of the perforator vessel was charted against anatomical landmarks. Results: The pedicle lengths of the third and fourth lumbar artery perforator reached a mean of 27.8 mm and 37.1 mm respectively from superficial fascia to deep fascia. The fourth perforator was more laterally located than the third perforator and less than 1 cm above the iliac crest. A case in which the fourth lumbar artery perforator was used as flap pedicle is described. Conclusion: For the reconstruction of central defect on the back area, the lumbar artery perforator flap coverage may be a good alternative option. Computed tomographic angiography can easily identify the course and location of lumbar artery perforators and can be helpful to elevate the flap successfully.