Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2019; 46(02): 140-146
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2018.00913
Original Article

Choice of recipient vessels in muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction: A comparative study

Kyung-Chul Moon 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Jae-Min Lee 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Si-Ook Baek 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Seo-Yoon Jang 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Eul-Sik Yoon 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Byung-Il Lee 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Seung-Ha Park 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background Thoracodorsal vessels (TDVs) and internal mammary vessels (IMVs) have both been widely employed as recipient vessels for use in free muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flaps. However, whether TDVs or IMVs are preferable as recipient vessels for autologous breast reconstruction with a free MS-TRAM flap remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes when TDVs were used as recipient vessels to those obtained when IMVs were used as recipient vessels for autologous breast reconstruction with a free MS-TRAM flap.

Methods A retrospective matched-cohort study was performed. We retrospectively reviewed data collected from patients who underwent a free MS-TRAM flap for autologous breast reconstructions after mastectomy between March 2003 and June 2013. After a one-to-one matching using age, 100 autologous breast reconstructions were selected in this study. Of the 100 breast reconstructions, 50 flaps were anastomosed to TDVs and 50 to IMVs. Patient demographics and clinical outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and aesthetic score were compared between the two groups.

Results No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in patient demographics and clinical outcomes, including the complication rates and aesthetic scores. There were no major complications such as total or partial flap loss in either group.

Conclusions The results of our study demonstrate that both TDVs and IMVs were safe and efficient as recipient vessels in terms of the complication rates and aesthetic outcomes.

Keywords

Mammary arteries - Postoperative complications - Reconstructive surgical procedures


Publication History

Received: 29 July 2018

Accepted: 30 October 2018

Article published online:
03 April 2022

© 2019. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Chang DW, Kim S. Breast reconstruction and lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 19-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Temple CL, Strom EA, Youssef A. et al. Choice of recipient vessels in delayed TRAM flap breast reconstruction after radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115: 105-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Loiselle F, Schrag C, Magi E. et al. Occult malignancy rate associated with thoracodorsal vessel dissection for free flap breast reconstruction. J Surg Oncol 2008; 98: 94-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Halim AS, Alwi AA. Internal mammary perforators as recipient vessels for deep inferior epigastric perforator and muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap breast reconstruction in an Asian population. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 73: 170-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Saint-Cyr M, Youssef A, Bae HW. et al. Changing trends in recipient vessel selection for microvascular autologous breast reconstruction: an analysis of 1483 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119: 1993-2000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Moran SL, Nava G, Behnam AB. et al. An outcome analysis comparing the thoracodorsal and internal mammary vessels as recipient sites for microvascular breast reconstruction: a prospective study of 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111: 1876-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Haywood RM, Raurell A, Perks AG. et al. Autologous free tissue breast reconstruction using the internal mammary perforators as recipient vessels. Br J Plast Surg 2003; 56: 689-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Follmar KE, Prucz RB, Manahan MA. et al. Internal mammary intercostal perforators instead of the true internal mammary vessels as the recipient vessels for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 34-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Majumder S, Batchelor AG. Internal mammary vessels as recipients for free TRAM breast reconstruction: aesthetic and functional considerations. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52: 286-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dupin CL, Allen RJ, Glass CA. et al. The internal mammary artery and vein as a recipient site for free-flap breast reconstruction: a report of 110 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98: 685-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hefel L, Schwabegger A, Ninkovic M. et al. Internal mammary vessels: anatomical and clinical considerations. Br J Plast Surg 1995; 48: 527-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Santanelli Di Pompeo F, Longo B, Sorotos M. et al. The axillary versus internal mammary recipient vessel sites for breast reconstruction with diep flaps: a retrospective study of 256 consecutive cases. Microsurgery 2015; 35: 34-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Samargandi OA, Winter J, Corkum JP. et al. Comparing the thoracodorsal and internal mammary vessels as recipients for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microsurgery 2017; 37: 937-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kropf N, Macadam SA, McCarthy C. et al. Influence of the recipient vessel on fat necrosis after breast reconstruction with a free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2010; 44: 96-101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lhuaire M, Hivelin M, Drame M. et al. Determining the best recipient vessel site for autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction with DIEP flaps: an anatomical study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70: 781-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rosson GD, Holton LH, Silverman RP. et al. Internal mammary perforators: a cadaver study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2005; 21: 239-42
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Banwell M, Trotter D, Ramakrishnan V. The thoracodorsal artery and vein as recipient vessels for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68: 542-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Santanelli F, Longo B, Cagli B. et al. Predictive and protective factors for partial necrosis in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: does nulliparity bias flap viability?. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74: 47-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cody 3rd HS. Sentinal lymph node mapping in breast cancer. Breast Cancer 1999; 6: 13-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT. et al. Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: objective measurements. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5213-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Neligan P, Warren RJ, Van Beek A. Plastic surgery. 3rd ed. New York: Elsevier Saunders; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Nahabedian M. The internal mammary artery and vein as recipient vessels for microvascular breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68: 537-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yang SJ, Eom JS, Lee TJ. et al. Recipient vessel selection in immediate breast reconstruction with free abdominal tissue transfer after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Arch Plast Surg 2012; 39: 216-21
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schmidt M, Aszmann OC, Beck H. et al. The anatomic basis of the internal mammary artery perforator flap: a cadaver study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63: 191-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Baek IS, You JP, Rhee SM. et al. A clinical anatomic study of internal mammary perforators as recipient vessels for breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40: 761-5
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar