Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(06): 472-481
DOI: 10.1055/a-1978-9610
Original Article

Donor-Site Satisfaction of DIEP and Latissimus Dorsi Flaps—A Comparative Cohort Study

Jonas Löfstrand
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
,
Anna Paganini 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
,
Mattias Lidén
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
,
Emma Hansson 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Cancerfonden; 21 0279 SCIA, Percy Falks Stiftelse för Forskning Beträffande Prostata- och Bröstcancer; The Swedish Federal Government under the ALF agreement, ALFGBG-724171 and ALFGBG-965161.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Understanding of donor-site morbidity and satisfaction after breast reconstruction is limited. There are few previous studies comparing satisfaction with different donor sites in breast reconstruction. This study aimed to examine the long-term patient-reported satisfaction with the donor site of latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps in comparison to the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps. Further, a systematic review of previously published studies was conducted.

Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, all women who underwent breast reconstructions with either LD or DIEP flap following mastectomy and radiotherapy between 2007 and 2017 were included; patient-reported satisfaction was assessed using the BREAST-Q reconstruction module. For the systematic review, studies examining patient-reported abdominal satisfaction and well-being, and meeting the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) criteria were included.

Results Eligible and responding participants were divided into the LD (n = 135 patients) and DIEP (n = 118 patients) flap groups. Impairment due to muscular weakness of the donor site was more common in the LD group than that of the DIEP group. Bulging was common in the DIEP group and increased over time. Regarding the esthetic appearance of the donor site, the patients in the DIEP group were less satisfied than the LD group. The systematic review showed that most of the patients were dissatisfied with their abdomen after the operation.

Conclusion Patients who have undergone DIEP flap for breast reconstruction are less satisfied with the donor-site esthetics than those who have undergone LD flap. Patient-reported abdominal bulging was common in the DIEP group and the number seemed to increase over time. Most patients were not satisfied with their abdominal scarring postoperatively, as per the systematic review. These results may indicate a need for more nuanced preoperative patient information, as well as improvements in the surgical management of the donor site, for DIEP flap reconstructions.

Keywords

latissimus dorsi flap - deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap - breast reconstruction - patient-reported outcome - patient satisfaction - long-term

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 17 May 2022

Accepted: 31 October 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
15 November 2022

Article published online:
30 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Toyserkani NM, Jørgensen MG, Tabatabaeifar S, Damsgaard T, Sørensen JA. Autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020; 73 (02) 278-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Thorarinsson A, Fröjd V, Kölby L, Ljungdal J, Taft C, Mark H. Long-term health-related quality of life after breast reconstruction: comparing 4 different methods of reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (06) e1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Andrade WN, Baxter N, Semple JL. Clinical determinants of patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nahabedian MY, Patel K. Autologous flap breast reconstruction: surgical algorithm and patient selection. J Surg Oncol 2016; 113 (08) 865-874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Timmermans FW, Westland PB, Hummelink S. et al. A retrospective investigation of abdominal visceral fat, body mass index (BMI), and active smoking as risk factors for donor site wound healing complications after free DIEP flap breast reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (06) 827-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nahabedian MY, Momen B. Lower abdominal bulge after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP) breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 54 (02) 124-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vyas RM, Dickinson BP, Fastekjian JH, Watson JP, DaLio AL, Crisera CA. Risk factors for abdominal donor-site morbidity in free flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (05) 1519-1526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Egeberg A, Rasmussen MK, Sørensen JA. Comparing the donor-site morbidity using DIEP, SIEA or MS-TRAM flaps for breast reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65 (11) 1474-1480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Atisha D, Alderman AK. A systematic review of abdominal wall function following abdominal flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 63 (02) 222-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Grünherz L, Keijzer W, Uyulmaz S. et al. Donor site aesthetics and morbidity after DIEP flap breast reconstruction-a retrospective multicenter study. Breast J 2020; 26 (10) 1980-1986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lindenblatt N, Gruenherz L, Farhadi J. A systematic review of donor site aesthetic and complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2019; 8 (04) 389-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lee KT, Mun GH. A systematic review of functional donor-site morbidity after latissimus dorsi muscle transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (02) 303-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Steffenssen MCW, Kristiansen AH, Damsgaard TE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional shoulder impairment after latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2019; 82 (01) 116-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Browne JP, Jeevan R, Pusic AL. et al. Measuring the patient perspective on latissimus dorsi donor site outcomes following breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (03) 336-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ingvaldsen CA, Tindholdt TT, Tønseth KA. DIEAP flap patients equally as satisfied with the abdomen as abdominoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (08) e1876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Davies CF, Macefield R, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Potter S. Patient-reported outcome measures for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a systematic review of development and measurement properties. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28 (01) 386-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Erdmann-Sager J, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL. et al. Complications and patient-reported outcomes after abdominally based breast reconstruction: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (02) 271-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nelson JA, Tecci MG, Lanni MA. et al. Function and strength after free abdominally based breast reconstruction: a 10-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (01) 22e-31e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Macadam SA, Zhong T, Weichman K. et al. Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer survivors: a multicenter comparison of four abdominally based autologous reconstruction methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (03) 758-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tan MG, Isaranuwatchai W, DeLyzer T. et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of DIEP vs free MS-TRAM flap for microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Surg Oncol 2019; 119 (03) 388-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Opsomer D, Vyncke T, Ryx M, Stillaert F, Van Landuyt K, Blondeel P. Comparing the lumbar and SGAP flaps to the DIEP flap using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (03) 276e-282e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kamya L, Hansson E, Weick L, Hansson E. Validation and reliability testing of the Breast-Q latissimus dorsi questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties in a Swedish population. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2021; 19 (01) 174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Elander A, Lundberg J, Karlsson P. et al. Indikation för bröstrekonstruktion med kroppsegen vävnad med fri lambå. Report 2011:03 from the project group for Swedish national medical indications. Stockholm: 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Brorson F, Thorarinsson A, Kölby L, Elander A, Hansson E. Early complications in delayed breast reconstruction: a prospective, randomized study comparing different reconstructive methods in radiated and non-radiated patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020; 46 (12) 2208-2217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Thorarinsson A, Fröjd V, Kölby L, Lidén M, Elander A, Mark H. Patient determinants as independent risk factors for postoperative complications of breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2017; 6 (04) 355-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Thorarinsson A, Fröjd V, Kölby L. et al. Blood loss and duration of surgery are independent risk factors for complications after breast reconstruction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2017; 51 (05) 352-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Thorarinsson A, Fröjd V, Kölby L. et al. A retrospective review of the incidence of various complications in different delayed breast reconstruction methods. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2016; 50 (01) 25-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bostwick III J, Vasconez LO, Jurkiewicz MJ. Breast reconstruction after a radical mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 61 (05) 682-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (02) 293-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (02) 345-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Weick L, Brorson F, Jepsen C, Lidén M, Jensen EW, Hansson E. Giving meaning to patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction after mastectomy - a systematic review of available scores and suggestions for further research. Breast 2022; 61: 91-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. Normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q: augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (04) 846-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Klifto KM, Aravind P, Major M. et al. Establishing institution-specific normative data for the BREAST-Q reconstruction module: a prospective study. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (06) NP348-NP355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Pusic AL. From BREAST-Q to Q-score: Using Rasch measurements to better capture breast surgery. In: Joint International IMEKO TC1+ TC7+ TC13 Symposium,. Jena, Germany: 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Allen Jr RJ, Sobti N, Patel AR. et al. Laterality and patient-reported outcomes following autologous breast reconstruction with free abdominal tissue: an 8-year examination of BREAST-Q data. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (05) 964-975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ochoa O, Garza III R, Pisano S. et al. Prospective longitudinal patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life following DIEP flap breast reconstruction: relationship with body mass index. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (06) 1589-1600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Stone JP, Bello RJ, Siotos C. et al. Patient-related risk factors for worsened abdominal well-being after autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (03) 475e-480e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kerrebijn I, Retrouvey H, Härmä M. et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy at the time of delayed microvascular breast reconstruction adversely affects patient-reported outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74 (04) 785-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Siegwart LC, Sieber L, Fischer S. et al. The use of semi-absorbable mesh and its impact on donor-site morbidity and patient-reported outcomes in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021; 45 (03) 907-916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Patel KV, Guralnik JM, Dansie EJ, Turk DC. Prevalence and impact of pain among older adults in the United States: findings from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study. Pain 2013; 154 (12) 2649-2657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Roberts S, Colombier P, Sowman A. et al. Ageing in the musculoskeletal system. Acta Orthop 2016; 87 (sup363): 15-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Luime JJ, Koes BW, Hendriksen IJ. et al. Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol 2004; 33 (02) 73-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Koh E, Watson DI, Dean NR. Quality of life and shoulder function after latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction☆ . J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (09) 1317-1323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Chang EI, Chang EI, Soto-Miranda MA. et al. Comprehensive analysis of donor-site morbidity in abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (06) 1383-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Elver AA, Matthews SA, Egan KG. et al. Characterizing outcomes of medial and lateral perforators in deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022 (e-pub ahead of print). doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1744310. (Accessed April 27, 2022)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lindegren A, Halle M, Docherty Skogh AC, Edsander-Nord Å. Postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the irradiated breast: a comparative study of DIEP and latissimus dorsi flap outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (01) 10-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Pluvy I, Bellidenty L, Ferry N, Benassarou M, Tropet Y, Pauchot J. [Abdominal perforator flap (DIEP) and autologous latissimus dorsi in breast reconstruction. A retrospective comparative study about the first 60 cases of a same surgeon]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2014; 59 (02) 103-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Abu-Nab Z, Grunfeld EA. Satisfaction with outcome and attitudes towards scarring among women undergoing breast reconstructive surgery. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 66 (02) 243-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Everaars KE, Welbie M, Hummelink S, Tjin EPM, de Laat EH, Ulrich DJO. The impact of scars on health-related quality of life after breast surgery: a qualitative exploration. J Cancer Surviv 2021; 15 (02) 224-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Niddam J, Bosc R, Lange F. et al. DIEP flap for breast reconstruction: retrospective evaluation of patient satisfaction on abdominal results. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (06) 789-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Patterson CW, Palines PA, Bartow MJ. et al. Stratification of surgical risk in DIEP breast reconstruction based on classification of Obesity. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (01) 1-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar