INTRODUCTIONThe deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is currently viewed as the gold standard in autologous breast reconstruction. We studied three-dimensional computed tomography angiography (CTA) in 145 patients undergoing free abdominal flap breast reconstruction to try to correlate deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) branching pattern with the type of flap performed and patient outcome. Today, reconstructive breast surgeons have become more experienced in raising DIEP flaps and operative times are becoming more acceptable. However, there remains significant interest in finding ways to aid this challenging dissection.METHODSWe retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients between January 2007 and August 2008. CTAs were analysed using the Moon and Taylor (1988) classification of the DIEA branching pattern. Data gathered included pre-operative morbidity, type of abdominal wall free flap performed, length of operation, length of stay and complications.RESULTSSome 150 breast reconstructions were performed in 145 patients. There were 67 DIEP flaps, 69 MS-2 transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps and 14 MS-1 TRAM flaps (where MS-1 spares the lateral muscle and MS-2 spares both lateral and medial segments). Proportionally more DIEP flaps were performed in patients with a type 2 branching pattern. There was one flap loss (0.67%).CONCLUSIONSIn this large CTA series, we found a type 1 (single artery) DIEA pattern most frequently, in contrast to the predominance of the type 2 bifurcating pattern observed previously. The higher proportion of DIEP flaps performed in the type 2 pattern patients is consistent with the documented shorter intramuscular course in this group. We have found CTA useful for faster selection of the best hemiabdomen for dissection and flap loss rates in our unit have reduced from 1.5% to 0.67%.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.