The Impact of Perforator Number on Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction

BackgroundPerforator flaps minimize abdominal site morbidity during autologous breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the number of perforators harvested influences the overall deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap survival and flap-related complications.

MethodsA retrospective review was performed of all DIEP flaps performed at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from 2006 to 2011. The outcomes assessed included flap loss and major complications. We compared flaps by the number of total perforators (1-4) and then carried out a subgroup analysis comparing flaps with one perforator to flaps with multiple perforators. Lastly, we conducted a post-hoc analysis based on body mass index (BMI) categorization.

ResultsThree hundred thirty-three patients underwent 395 DIEP flaps. No significant differences were noted in the flap loss rate or the overall complications across perforator groups. However, the subgroup analysis revealed significantly higher rates of fat necrosis in the case of one-perforator flaps than in the case of multiple-perforator flaps (10.2% vs. 3.1%, P=0.009). The post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase in the flap loss rate with increasing BMI (<30=2.0%, 30-34.9=3.1%, 35-39.9=3.1%, >40=42.9%, P<0.001) in the DIEP flaps, but no increase in fat necrosis.

ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the number of perforators does not impact the rate of flap survival. However, the rate of fat necrosis may be significantly higher in DIEP flaps based on a single perforator. Multiple perforators should be utilized if possible to decrease the risk of fat necrosis.

Keywords

Breast reconstruction - Outcome assessment (health care) - Microsurgery

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Nancy Folsom BSN for assistance with and preparation for the IRB review.

This article was presented at the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery Annual Meeting 2013, January 14, 2013 in Naples, FL, USA.

Publication History

Received: 21 October 2013

Accepted: 03 December 2013

Article published online:
02 May 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Sisco M, Du H, Warner JP. et al. Have we expanded the equitable delivery of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the new millennium? Evidence from the national cancer data base. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 215: 658-666
• 2 Man LX, Selber JC, Serletti JM. Abdominal wall following free TRAM or DIEP flap reconstruction: a meta-analysis and critical review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 752-764
• 3 Garvey PB, Buchel EW, Pockaj BA. et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 1711-1719
• 4 Selber JC, Nelson J, Fosnot J. et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: part I. unilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 1142-1153
• 5 Selber JC, Fosnot J, Nelson J. et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: Part II. Bilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 1438-1453
• 6 Nelson JA, Guo Y, Sonnad SS. et al. A Comparison between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in breast reconstruction: a single surgeon's recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 1428-1435
• 7 Kroll SS. Free TRAM or DIEP flap: which to choose. Oper Tech Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 6: 83-85
• 8 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: 1335-1341
• 9 Chang DW, Wang B, Robb GL. et al. Effect of obesity on flap and donor-site complications in free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105: 1640-1648
• 10 Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Miller MJ. et al. The free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: one center's experience with 211 consecutive cases. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32: 234-241
• 11 Kroll SS. Fat necrosis in free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106: 576-583
• 12 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: 1153-1160
• 13 Scheer AS, Novak CB, Neligan PC. et al. Complications associated with breast reconstruction using a perforator flap compared with a free TRAM flap. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 56: 355-358
• 14 Fischer JP, Sieber B, Nelson JA. et al. Comprehensive outcome and cost analysis of free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction: an experience with 1303 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 195-203
• 15 Cleveland EC, Fischer JP, Nelson JA. et al. Optimizing the fascial closure: an analysis of 1261 abdominally based free flap reconstructions. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 71: 255-260
• 16 Rozen WM, Whitaker IS, Chubb D. et al. Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 2286-2288
• 17 Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL. et al. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2000. JAMA 2002; 288: 1723-1727
• 18 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: 2206-2213
• 19 Fischer JP, Nelson JA, Sieber B. et al. Free tissue transfer in the obese patient: an outcome and cost analysis in 1258 consecutive abdominally based reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 681e-692e
• 20 Fischer JP, Cleveland EC, Nelson JA. et al. Breast reconstruction in the morbidly obese patient: assessment of 30-day complications using the 2005 to 2010 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data sets. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 750-761